Newton v. Breckon, et al, No. 3:2023cv00148 - Document 15 (E.D. Va. 2024)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge M. Hannah Lauck on 2/15/2024. (jpow, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Newton v. Breckon, et al Doc. 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division EARL NICHOLAS NEWTON, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 3:23cvl48 V. MICHAEL BRECKON, et. ah Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff, a Virginia prisoner proceeding pro se filed this action. The matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs failure to serve Defendants within the time required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). Rule 4(m) provides: court- If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period. This subdivision (m) does not apply to service in a foreign country under Rule 4(f) or 4(j)(l). Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Pursuant to Rule 4(m), Plaintiff had 90 days from the filing of the Complaint to serve Defendants. Here, that period commenced on August 10, 2023. More than 90 days have elapsed, and Plaintiff has not served Defendants. However, on November 8, 2023, Plaintiff mailed a Motion for Extension of Time to the Court asking for a thirty (30) day extension, or until December 10, 2023, to provide the Court with addresses and the names of the Doe Defendants. (ECF No. 12, at 1.) By Memorandum Order entered on November 20,2023, the Court granted Plaintiff a thirty (30) days extension, or until December 20, 2023. Dockets.Justia.com Because Plaintiff did not respond, by Memorandum Order entered on January 5, 2024, the Court directed Plaintiff, within twenty (20) days of the date of entry thereof, to show good cause why the action against Defendants should not be dismissed without prejudice for failing to comply with Rule 4(m). More than twenty (20) days have elapsed, and Plaintiff has not filed a response. Accordingly, the action will be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. An appropriate Order shall issue. s^ Date: M. Ha Richmond, Virginia United ItatSs'District Judge 2 -U'
]]>
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.
