Draper v. United States Postal Service, No. 3:2018cv00010 - Document 23 (W.D. Va. 2018)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Senior Judge Glen E. Conrad on 5/31/2018. (ssm)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Draper v. United States Postal Service Doc. 23 CLERK'S U.S. 0\ST. COURT AT ROANOKE, VA . FILED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COl!Jfl FOR THE WESTl:RN DISTRICT lW VIRCiiNIA CIIARl OTTESVlLl..E DI\'IS!ON ,. _ . JULI BY: 1 2018 . v ER CEDRICK DRAPER. Civil .J\<:tion No. Plaintitl JS('VOOOl 0 v. MEMORAND\!1\1 OPINION UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE. By: Hon. Glen E. Conrad Senior United States District Judge Defendant. Cedrick Draper. proceeding ru:Q filed this action again!:! the United Stutes Postal Service (Postal Service) in the General District Court for the City of Churlottesvillc. The Postal Service removed the case to this court on February 12, 8. By letter dated March 9, 2018. an Assistant United States At1omey (AUSA) ad,·ised the plaintiff that it appeared that scrYice had not been properly effected in accordance with the Federal Rules of Ci\'il Procedure. The AUSA recommended that the plaintiff consult Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(i). which sets forth the requirements for serving the United States and its agencies, corporations, officers. or employees. The AUSA also supplied the names of employees designated to accept service of process on behalf of the United States At1omey for the Western District of Virginia. The plruntiff responded by letter dated March 15, 2018. In his letter, the plaintiff acknowledged that the Postal Service had not been properly served with process. and he ''apologize[ d]" for the ·•error.'' Docket No. 9. Nonetheless, the plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment against the Postal Service that same day. By order entered May 10, 201 8, the court denied the motion for summary judgment. and directed Draper to serve the Postal Service and provide proof of service to the court by May 28, Dockets.Justia.com 18. 1 On Mny 16, 18. after receiving a response from Draper, the court issued another notice advising Druper that he had not provided proof of service in accordance with Rule 4(i), and that the case would be dismissed \\ithout prejudice if he did not comply with the court's pre\'ious order. The extended deadline for effecting service has passed, and Draper has failed to establish that the Postal Sen·ice was properly served with process. By statute. the Postal Service must be served "in the same. way one would serve the United States under the Federal Rules.'' Domdass v. United States Postal Sen· .. Nc\ 3:17-cv-00250, ::!017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77011. at *2 (N.D. Ind. May 22. 2017) (citing 39 U.S.C. § 409(b)); see also Marcus v.. Postmaster Gen., 461 F. App'x 820. 821 (11th Cir. 2011) (holding that the Postal Service must be sen·ed in accordance with Rule 4(i)). To sen'e the United States, a plaintiff must send a copy of the summons and complaint by registered or certified mail to the Attorney General of the United States and deliver a copy of the swnmons and complaint to the United States Attorney for the district where the action is brought. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(i)(l). Delivery to the Uruted States Attorney may be effected by ( 1) delivering a copy of the swnmons and complaint to the United States Attorney; (2) delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to an AUSA or clerical employee designated by the United States Attorney in a writing filed with the court clerk; or (3) sending a copy of the swnmons and complaint by registered or certified mail to the civil-process clerk at the United States Attorney's office. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(i)(1 )(A)(i)-(ii). On May 17, 2018, Draper filed a self-styled "certificate of service,"' along with a package receipt from a United Parcel Service (UPS) store. Docket No. 21. However, neither the certificate nor the UPS receipt indicates that the Postal Service was properly served with process. 1 Based on the filing date of the notice of removal. Draper had until May 14, ::!018 to accomplish service on the Postal Service. However, in light of his lllil status and the particular circumstances presented, the court extended the time for Draper to properly serve the Postal Service until May ::!8, 2018. 2 The tracking number on the receipt reveals only that a package was del ivercd to an unknown address in Roanoke, Virginia on May 18. 2018. which docs not meet the requirements of Rule 4( i ). In short. Draper has consistently failed to establish that "a copy of the summons and of the complaint'' was sent to the Anomcy General of the United States in Washington. D.C. or delivered to an appropriate person in the United States Attorney's office. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4/i)(A). The court has advised Draper on multiple occasions that he must satisfy the service requirements of Rule 4(i)." Despite rcceiYing an extension of time in which to serve the Postal Service, he has not provided proof of service in accordance with the federal rule. Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 4(m) and the court's previous order, the court will dismiss the action without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) ("If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court--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."). The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this memorandum opinion and the accompanying order to the plaintiff and all counsel of record. DATED: day 2018. 2 Although the Postal Service may be i.lWarc of the pending action, ..!a]ctual notice does not equate to sufficient service of process, even under the liberal construction of the rules applicable to a llli! plaintiff.'' Scott v. Md. State Dcp't of Labor, 673 f. App'x 299,305 (4th Cir. 2016). Likewise, ''[t]he filing of' a removal petition docs not cure a defect in service or constitute a waiver of the right to object to service of process." v. Whitepages. Inc., No. 5: 12-cv-00097. 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXJS 73697, at •s (W.D. Ya. May 23, 2013) (citing City of Clarksdale v. BeliSouth Telecomm., Inc., 428 F.3d 206, 214 n.l5 (5th Cir. 2005)). 3
]]>
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.
