Case ID: f-appx_530/html/0901-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Lithonia HARRIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sheriff Billy DELOCH, Appling County, et al., Defendants, Officer Anthony Tillman, a.k.a. Talmadge, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 13-10687
    Non-Argument Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    Sept. 17, 2013.
    James Wrixam Mcllvaine, Mcllvaine Law Group, Brunswick, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Richard Strickland, Emily Rose Hancock, Garret Warrington Meader, Brown Readdick Bumgartner Carter Strickland & Watkins, LLP, Brunswick, GA, Samuel Scott Olens, Attorney General’s Office, State Of GA, Atlanta, GA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before DUBINA, WILSON, and HILL, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Lithonia J. Harris appeals the dismissal as time barred of his § 1983 action against Officer Anthony Tillman, arguing that his failure to effect timely service of process was due to “inadvertence and delays due to no fault of [his own].” The Magistrate Judge, who prepared a report and recommendation on Officer Tillman’s motion to dismiss, agreed and recommended that the motion be denied.

The district court, however, rejected this recommendation, finding that Harris failed to supply either the correct address or name for defendant Tillman, causing the excessive delay in serving him and further causing the statute of limitations to expire before service had been effected. The court further held that Harris’ subsequent “amendment” of his complaint to provide the defendant’s correct name did not “relate back” to the filing of his complaint because Tillman had no way of knowing he was being sued within the relevant time period. Accordingly, the district court granted Tillman’s motion to dismiss, holding that plaintiffs complaint was not timely filed.

We have reviewed the record and considered the chain of events that led to the dismissal of Harris’ complaint. On balance, we conclude that the district court’s judgment of dismissal should be affirmed. Accordingly, the judgment is.

AFFIRMED.