The King/Morocco v. Sterling McCall Lexus, No. 19-20172 (5th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 19-20172 Document: 00515096113 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/28/2019 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 19-20172 Summary Calendar THE KING/MOROCCO, United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED August 28, 2019 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Plaintiff - Appellant v. STERLING MCCALL LEXUS, Defendant - Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:18-CV-4201 Before DAVIS, SMITH, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Plaintiff, referring to himself as The King/Morocco, challenges the district court’s dismissal without prejudice of his suit for discriminatory treatment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. We AFFIRM. Plaintiff, acting pro se, sued five separate car dealerships in Houston alleging unfair treatment. He alleged in his action against Sterling McCall Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. * Case: 19-20172 Document: 00515096113 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/28/2019 No. 19-20172 Lexus that, while employed, he suffered discrimination and defamation due to his ethnicity. Plaintiff, however, made no service on the Defendant, and the district court, pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, dismissed the case without prejudice for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff never gave any reason or justification for his delay in service. This court has jurisdiction to review the district court’s dismissal without prejudice. United States v. Wallace & Tiernan Co., 336 U.S. 793, 794 n.1 (1949); Linn v. Chivatero, 714 F.2d 1278, 1280 (5th Cir. 1983). Rule 4 permits a district court to dismiss an action without prejudice if a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, unless the plaintiff can show good cause for the failure. Thompson v. Brown, 91 F.3d 20, 21 (5th Cir. 1996). Although Plaintiff now protests on appeal that he had poor communication with the district court concerning his change of address, he at no point attempted to demonstrate any justification for his failure to serve process on Defendant. The district court thus did not err in dismissing the suit. AFFIRMED. 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.
