Case Title: Paras v. Correctional Medial Services et al.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 370, 2001

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2003-02-10T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
RICARDO M. PARAS, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL 
SERVICES, DR. JAFRI, DR. IVENS, 
and DR. PENSERGA, 
 
Defendants Below- 
Appellees. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 370, 2001 
§ 
§ 
§  Court BelowSuperior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  C.A. No. 00C-08-104 
§   
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: January 10, 2003 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: February 10, 2003 
 
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH and STEELE, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 10th day of February 2003, upon consideration of the Superior Court’s 
report following remand and the parties’ supplemental briefing, it appears to the 
Court that: 
 
(1) 
After considering this appeal on the basis of the briefs and the record 
below, this Court concluded that we could not conduct a meaningful review of the 
Superior Court’s judgment dismissing Paras’ complaint because the rationale for 
the judgment had been pronounced in open court and the tape of that proceeding 
was missing and had not been previously transcribed.  Accordingly, we remanded 
 
2 
the matter to the Superior Court “to reconstruct at least that part of the missing 
transcript containing the rationale for its decision to dismiss” the complaint.   
(2) 
The Superior Court issued its report following remand, which contains 
its factual findings and rulings of law.  Upon consideration of the Superior Court’s 
report and the parties’ supplemental memoranda, we find it manifest that the 
judgment of the Superior Court, which dismissed Paras’ complaint against the 
corporate and individual defendants for insufficient service of process, should be 
affirmed for the reasons set forth in the Superior Court’s well-reasoned decision 
following remand.  Paras did not present any evidence to support a finding that the 
person upon whom he served his complaint had authority to accept service of 
process for the defendants.  The undisputed record, therefore, reflects that Paras 
did not properly serve any of the defendants within 120 days of filing his 
complaint.   Accordingly, the Superior Court did not err in dismissing his 
complaint.  
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
_/s/ Myron T. Steele___________________ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice