James Widtfeldt v. James Daugherty, No. 14-1907 (8th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Civil case. Order dismissing plaintiff's claim for failure to prosecute was not an abuse of the trial court's discretion when plaintiff failed to show that he had properly effectuated service within 120 days of the filing of his complaint.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 14-1907 ___________________________ James A. Widtfeldt lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. James Daugherty, Revenue Officer; Internal Revenue Service; U.S. Treasury lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Nebraska - Omaha ____________ Submitted: December 11, 2014 Filed: December 16, 2014 [Unpublished] ____________ Before SMITH, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. James Widtfeldt appeals the district court’s1 without-prejudice dismissal of his pro se civil action for failure to prosecute. Upon careful review, we conclude that the 1 The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska. district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the action without prejudice, because Widtfeldt failed to establish that he had properly effectuated service against defendants within 120 days after filing his complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m); Bullock v. United States, 160 F.3d 441, 442 (8th Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
