The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
CURTIS GORDON CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS NO. 24-2136
LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF SECTION “G” (5)
PUBLIC SAFETY AND
CORRECTIONS, ET AL.
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff Curtis Gordon’s (“Plaintiff”) objection1 to the Report and
Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge assigned to this case. The Magistrate Judge
recommended that the case be dismissed because Plaintiff has not complied with two Court orders
requiring him to perfect service on the defendants.2 Plaintiff objects to the Report and
Recommendation, and he argues the case should not be dismissed.3 However, Plaintiff he does not
include any information on attempts made to serve the defendants.
A district court has “broad discretion to dismiss an action for ineffective service of
process.”4 If the plaintiff fails to serve a defendant within 90 days of filing, Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 4(m) allows a court to dismiss a suit without prejudice.5 However, “if the plaintiff shows
good cause for the failure, the court shall extend the time for service to an appropriate period.”6
“[G]ood cause under Rule 4(m) requires at least as much as would be required to show excusable
1 Rec. Doc. 26.
2 Rec. Doc. 25.
3 Rec. Doc. 26.
4 Kreimerman v. Casa Veerkamp, S.A. de C.V., 22 F.3d 634, 645 (5th Cir. 1994).
5 Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).
6 Id.
neglect, as to which simple inadvertence or mistake of counsel or ignorance of the rules usually
does not suffice.”7 Even absent a showing of good cause, a court has the discretion to extend the
deadline to serve process.8
Plaintiff was granted pauper status in this lawsuit. Therefore, he is entitled to have service
effected by the United States Marshal.9 That fact, however, does not relieve Plaintiff of all
responsibility regarding service. Rather, “[a]t a minimum, a plaintiff should request service upon
the appropriate defendant and attempt to remedy any apparent service defects of which a plaintiff
has knowledge.”10 Dismissal is appropriate when service has not been properly effected due to the
inaction or dilatoriness of a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis.11
This case has been pending since August 2024.12 The Magistrate Judge issued two Orders
requiring Plaintiff to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute.13
Plaintiff responded to both orders, but he failed to show any steps taken to effect service.14 In the
objections to the Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff again fails to show any steps taken to
effect service.
More than a year has elapsed since this lawsuit was filed in August 2024. Despite the
passage of that extensive period of time, Plaintiff has not provided this Court or the United States
7 Gartin v. Par Pharm. Co., Inc., 289 Fed. App’x. 688, 692 (5th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted).
8 Dotson v. Tunica-Biloxi Gamming Comm’n, 835 Fed. App’x. 710, 713 (5th Cir. 2020) (citing Thrasher v.
City of Amarillo, 709 F.3d 509, 511 (5th Cir. 2013)).
9 Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3).
10 Rochon v. Dawson, 828 F.2d 1107, 1110 (5th Cir. 1987).
11 Id.
12 Rec. Doc. 1.
13 Rec. Docs. 19, 22.
14 Rec. Docs.
Marshal with the information necessary to effect service on Defendants nor has he attempted to
remedy any defect in service himself. Plaintiff has been provided ample notice and opportunity to
effect service. Therefore, the failure to serve Defendants results not from the actions or inactions
of the Court or the United States Marshal, but rather solely from the inaction and dilatoriness of
Plaintiff, who has apparently taken no action to effect service. Without service on Defendants, this
lawsuit cannot move forward.
Despite being given express notice that his claims against Defendants could be dismissed
unless Plaintiff provided the required information or showed good cause for failing to do so,
Plaintiff has failed to cure any defects in service. Therefore, this Court finds that dismissal of the
claims against Defendants is now appropriate.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs claims against Defendants are DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, this 19th day of September, 2025.
D arvetteobwett. Erowr
NANNETTE JOLIVETTE BROWN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE