Case ID: f-appx_108/html/0928-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Janis L. HORTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Joseph B. BOGAN, Warden, Federal Medical Center-Carswell, in his individual capacity; John T. Rathman, Associate Warden, Federal Medical Center-Carswell, in his individual capacity; Loren Thackera, Facilities Manager, Federal Medical Center-Carswell, in his individual capacity; Terry Davis, Facilities Supervisor, Federal Medical Center-Carswell, in his individual capacity; C. Stratman, Clinical Supervisor, Federal Medical Center-Carswell, in his individual capacity; Randy Vaslik, Safety Manager, Federal Medical Center-Carswell, in his individual capacity, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 03-60954.
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided Sept. 13, 2004.
    Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, Ernesto Horacio Molina, Jr., U.S. Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Hipólito Acosta, U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service, Houston, TX, Room T8011, U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service District Directors Office, New Orleans, LA, Patrice A Shelburne, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Janis L. Horton, federal prisoner # 05959-031, appeals the district court’s dismissal of her civil rights action brought against federal employees pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971) for failure to effect timely service of the defendants under Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m). Horton has not established that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing this lawsuit. See Systems Signs Supplies v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 903 F.2d 1011, 1013 (5th Cir.1990). Consequently, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.