Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-2_15-cv-00632/USCOURTS-alsd-2_15-cv-00632-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Job Discrimination (Race)

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

MARY DENISE YOUNG,

Plaintiff,

:

:

:

:

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 15-0632-CG-M

:

QUALITY CARE REHAB,

Defendant.

:

:

:

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Currently before this Court is Defendant, Quality Care 

Rehab’s, (hereinafter “Quality” or “Defendant”) Motion to 

Dismiss (Doc. 19). This motion, under Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) and 41(b), was

referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72.2(c)(4), and is now before 

the Court. Plaintiff did not file a response to 

Defendant’s motion. 

After careful consideration of the record, it is 

recommended that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for failure 

to timely serve be denied.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed her Complaint against Defendant on 

December 15, 2015. (Doc. 1). On that same date, Plaintiff 

filed a Motion to Proceed Without Payment of Fees (also 

known as a Motion to Proceed In forma Pauperis (“IFP”))

Case 2:15-cv-00632-CG-M Document 25 Filed 09/09/16 Page 1 of 8
2

(Doc. 2) which was granted by this Court on February 24, 

2015 (Doc. 4), which was more than 60 days after the filing 

of the Complaint. On that same date, upon order of this 

Court, the Clerk of Court sent a Notice of Lawsuit and 

Request for Waiver of Service and Summons to Defendant via

first class mail to the address provided by Plaintiff on 

her Complaint. (Doc. 5). The waiver was due to be 

returned by Defendant not later than March 24, 2016. (Id.) 

When Defendant did not return the waiver by the due date, 

this Court entered an order directing that the Clerk send a

summons and a copy of the Complaint to Defendant via 

certified mail and ordered Defendant, when filing its 

response to the Complaint, to show cause why the waiver was 

not timely returned to the Court. (Doc. 6). The summons 

was issued on April 7, 2015, again to the same address 

provided by Plaintiff; however, the name “Ms. Dreama M. 

Waldrop, President” was added.1 (Doc. 7). Service was 

perfected on Defendant on April 15, 2016. (Doc. 8). 

On May 20, 2016, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss, 

Motion for More Definite Statement and Response to Show 

Cause Order. (Doc. 11). This Court ordered Plaintiff to 

respond to the motion or file an Amended Complaint by not 

later than June 10, 2016. (Doc. 13). Plaintiff filed an 

																																																							 1 The docket sheet of this case does not explain how the name of this 

individual came to be included on the summons.

Case 2:15-cv-00632-CG-M Document 25 Filed 09/09/16 Page 2 of 8
3

Amended Complaint on June 3, 2016 (Doc. 17), and Defendant 

filed the subject Motion to Dismiss on June 17, 2016, based 

on Plaintiff’s failure to timely effect service. (Doc. 19). 

DISCUSSION

Defendant contends Plaintiff’s Complaint is due to be 

dismissed for failure to timely served Defendant pursuant 

to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 4(m), which provides as follows:

“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. But if the 

plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court 

must extend the time for service for an appropriate 

period...”

Good cause exists “when some outside factor such as

reliance on faulty advice, rather than inadvertence or 

negligence, prevented service.” Abele v. Hernando County,

161 Fed. Appx. 809, at 4-5 (11th Cir. 2005). 

When a court grants a litigant leave to proceed IFP, 

the officers of the court must “issue and serve all 

process.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). In Rance v. Rocksolid

Granit USA, Inc., 583 F.3d 1284 (11th Cir.2009), the 

Eleventh Circuit explained that, “[t]ogether, Rule 4(c)(2) 

and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(c) stand for the proposition that when 

a plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis the court is 

obligated to issue plaintiff's process to a United States 

Marshal.” Id. at 1286). The Court went on to state that, 

Case 2:15-cv-00632-CG-M Document 25 Filed 09/09/16 Page 3 of 8
4

the Marshal “must in turn effectuate service upon the 

defendants, thereby relieving a plaintiff of the burden to 

serve process once reasonable steps have been taken to 

identify for the court the defendants named in the 

complaint.” Id. As a result, the Eleventh Circuit adopted 

the following rule: “[T]he failure of the United States 

Marshal to effectuate service on behalf of an in forma 

pauperis plaintiff through no fault of that plaintiff 

constitutes ‘good cause’ for the plaintiff's failure to 

effect timely service within the meaning of Rule 4(m).” 

Rance, 583 F.3d at 1288; Fowler v. Jones, 899 F.2d 1088, 

1095 (11th Cir.1990)(“In forma pauperis litigants should be 

entitled to rely on the court officers and United States 

Marshals to effect proper service where such failure is not 

due to fault on the litigant's part.”); see also Powell v. 

Indep. Inventory Serv., Inc., 516 Fed.App’x. 907, 912-13

(11th Cir.2013).

 In the present action, Plaintiff was granted IFP 

status on February 24, 2016, at which time, it was 

reasonable for Plaintiff to rely on the Court to issue and 

serve Defendant with Plaintiff’s Complaint. Service was 

perfected, albeit 121 days after Plaintiff’s Complaint was 

filed. Therefore, the only reason good cause would not 

exist is if Plaintiff was at fault for the untimely 

Case 2:15-cv-00632-CG-M Document 25 Filed 09/09/16 Page 4 of 8
5

service. A review of the relevant documents indicates that 

Plaintiff provided this Court with the appropriate name and 

address of Defendant in her Complaint, evidenced by the 

fact that Defendant was ultimately served at said address. 

Defendant’s contention that Plaintiff’s failure to 

provide this Court with the name of the appropriate officer 

to be served represents fault on the part of Plaintiff is 

not persuasive. A plaintiff is relieved of her burden for 

perfecting service “once reasonable steps have been taken 

to identify for the court the defendants named in the 

complaint”, which was done in the present action. See

Rance, 583 F.3d at 1286. Further, the Order entered by 

this Court states only that “it is Plaintiff’s 

responsibility to furnish the Court with an accurate 

address for a Defendant”, which Plaintiff did. As a 

result, the failure of the court to timely serve Defendant 

constitutes “good cause” that demands an extension of time 

for Plaintiff to serve Defendant, which has now occurred. 

Furthermore, the Eleventh Circuit has held “that Rule 

4(m) grants discretion to the district court to extend the 

time for service of process even in the absence of a 

showing of good cause.” See Horenkamp v. Van Winkle And 

Co., Inc., 402 F.3d 1129 (11th Cir. 2005). In such an 

absence, “the district court must still consider whether 

Case 2:15-cv-00632-CG-M Document 25 Filed 09/09/16 Page 5 of 8
6

any other circumstances warrant an extension of time based 

on the facts of the case. Only after considering whether 

any such factors exist may the district court exercise its 

discretion and either dismiss the case without prejudice or 

direct that service be effected within a specified time.” 

Lepone-Dempsey v. Carroll County Com'rs, 76 F.3d 1277, 1282 

(11th Cir. 2007). 

Defendant has asserted that this Court should not be 

inclined to extend the time for service in the absence of a 

showing of good cause in the present action, due to 

Plaintiff’s failure to identify a named officer of 

Defendant to be served and because Plaintiff failed to 

otherwise serve Defendant, while stating to the Court that 

she had done so. However, because this Court, in the 

absence of a showing of good cause, can exercise discretion

in extending the time to serve after considering the 

circumstances of the case, the undersigned would still not 

be inclined to grant a dismissal in this action. 

First, this Court could have dismissed this action 

without prejudice right after Plaintiff’s deadline to serve 

Defendant elapsed, had there been no good cause. Instead, 

however, this Court entered an order directing the Clerk of 

Court to serve Defendant, which effectively extended the 

time for service to be completed. Further, following the 

Case 2:15-cv-00632-CG-M Document 25 Filed 09/09/16 Page 6 of 8
7

filing of Plaintiff’s initial Motion for More Definite 

Statement/Motion to Dismiss2, this Court entered an order 

informing Plaintiff that she could file an Amended 

Complaint (Doc. 13), which Plaintiff did (Doc. 17). As a 

result, it would be procedurally inappropriate, in the 

instant action, to now dismiss this action without 

prejudice, for untimely service. As a result, this Court 

is not inclined to dismiss this action, even in the absence 

of good cause.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons herein above, it is recommended that 

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for failure to timely serve 

be denied. 

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO FILE OBJECTIONS

A copy of this report and recommendation shall be 

served on all parties in the manner provided by law. Any 

party who objects to this recommendation or anything in it 

must, within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of 

this document, file specific written objections with the 

Clerk of this Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); 

FED.R.CIV.P. 72(b); S.D. ALA. L.R. 72(c). The parties should 

note that under Eleventh Circuit Rule 3-1, “[a] party 

failing to object to a magistrate judge's findings or 

																																																							 2 Defendant’s initial Motion (Doc. 11) also raised the issue of untimely 

service. 

Case 2:15-cv-00632-CG-M Document 25 Filed 09/09/16 Page 7 of 8
8

recommendations contained in a report and recommendation in 

accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) 

waives the right to challenge on appeal the district 

court's order based on unobjected-to factual and legal 

conclusions if the party was informed of the time period 

for objecting and the consequences on appeal for failing to 

object. In the absence of a proper objection, however, the 

court may review on appeal for plain error if necessary in 

the interests of justice.” 11th Cir. R. 3-1. In order to 

be specific, an objection must identify the specific 

finding or recommendation to which objection is made, state 

the basis for the objection, and specify the place in the 

Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation where the 

disputed determination is found. An objection that merely 

incorporates by reference or refers to the briefing before 

the Magistrate Judge is not specific. 

 DONE this 9th day of September, 2016. 

s/BERT W. MILLING, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:15-cv-00632-CG-M Document 25 Filed 09/09/16 Page 8 of 8