Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-04037/USCOURTS-ca10-91-04037-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

., FI LED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tf"Pt.h r;,.,.,1,r 

~.UG 6 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

BILLY FRED HICKS, ) Clerk 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

V • ) 

) 

GARY DELAND, ELDON BARNES, ) 

ROCKY BENNETT, BONNEY HARTLEY,) 

MORRIS R. WARREN, CLAUDE ) 

LAMPH, ROBERT L. JONES and ) 

BRENT EDMONDS, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

No. 91-4037 

(D.C. No. 90-C-448-S) 

(D. Utah) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before ANDERSON, TACHA, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Plaintiff-appellant Billy Fred Hicks filed this action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming officials at the Utah State 

Prison were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. 

Hicks filed his petition with the district court on May 21, 1990. 

On October 12, 1990, the magistrate issued an order for Hicks to 

show cause by October 22, 1990 why no service of process or 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 91-4037 Document: 010110130269 Date Filed: 08/06/1991 Page: 1 
request for service had been made on any of the named defendants. 

This order was based on Rule 4(j) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, which provides in relevant part: 

If a service of the summons and complaint is not 

made upon a defendant within 120 days after the 

filing of the complaint and the party on whose 

behalf such service was required cannot show good 

cause why such service was not made within that 

period, the action shall be dismissed as to that 

defendant without prejudice upon the court's own 

initiative with notice to such party or upon 

motion. 

Hicks did not respond to this order. In his Report and 

Recommendation issued December 22, 1990, the magistrate suggested 

the case be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 4(j). 

The district court entered such an order on January 24, 1991. 

Because Hicks failed to respond to the magistrate's order to 

show cause why service was not made upon the defendants within 120 

days, the district court properly dismissed the case. See Floyd 

Y.!.. United States, 900 F.2d 1045, 1047 (7th Cir. 1990); Edwards Y.!.. 

Edwards, 754 F.2d 298, 299 (8th Cir. 1985). Because Hicks' action 

was dismissed without prejudice, the district court's dismissal 

does not prevent him from filing another lawsuit based on the 

claims asserted here and attempt to make service of process on the 

defendants. AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-2-

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 91-4037 Document: 010110130269 Date Filed: 08/06/1991 Page: 2