[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 14-14154

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 2:12-cv-00073-RWS

THERESE VERONICA NATTY, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 versus

JAILER OFFICER MORGAN, 

DISTRICT ATTORNEY BAGGARD, 

SHERIFF STEVE CRONIC, 

OFFICER STROUTS, 

LT. MECHIMINO, et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

________________________

(September 16, 2015)

Case: 14-14154 Date Filed: 09/16/2015 Page: 1 of 3 
2

Before MARCUS, WILLIAM PRYOR and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Therese Veronica Natty, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s 

dismissal without prejudice of her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to properly 

serve any of the named defendants within the 120-day time period established by 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). Natty contends (1) the district court erred in 

dismissing her § 1983 action under Rule 4(m), and (2) the district court erred in 

denying her motion for appointment counsel. We affirm.1

 

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Natty’s § 1983 

action without prejudice under Rule 4(m) because Natty failed to serve the 

defendants within the 120-day time period and she has not shown good cause for 

failing to do so. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) (providing “[i]f a defendant is not served 

within 120 days after the complaint is filed, the court . . . must dismiss the action 

without prejudice” unless “the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure”). Natty’s 

argument she did not receive the orders and documents necessary to serve the 

defendants until after the 120-day time period elapsed does not establish good 

cause. Natty was made fully aware of the relevant documents and law regarding 

 

1 We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s dismissal without prejudice of a 

plaintiff’s complaint for failure to timely serve a defendant under Rule 4(m). Rance v. Rocksolid 

Granit USA, Inc., 583 F.3d 1284, 1286 (11th Cir. 2009). We also review for abuse of discretion 

a district court’s denial of a motion for appointment of counsel. Smith v. Sch. Bd. of Orange 

Cnty., 487 F.3d 1361, 1365 (11th Cir. 2007). 

Case: 14-14154 Date Filed: 09/16/2015 Page: 2 of 3 
3

Rule 4 service requirements by April 14 at the latest—more than two months 

before her 120-day window expired—when the magistrate judge entered an order 

explicitly reminding Natty “she is responsible for service of process upon the 

Defendants in [both of her lawsuits] as provided in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

4.” Nonetheless, Natty made no attempt to serve the defendants until after the 120-

day time period had elapsed. Even then, Natty’s belated attempt to serve the 

defendants was insufficient because she simply mailed papers to the defendants. 

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(2) (requiring personal service on an individual absent 

waiver). On this record, the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing 

Natty’s action without prejudice under Rule 4(m) for failing to properly serve the 

defendants. 

The district court also did not abuse its discretion in denying Natty’s motion 

for appointment of counsel because Natty’s § 1983 action is not so complex or 

novel as to require appointed counsel. See Kilgo v. Ricks, 983 F.2d 189, 193 (11th 

Cir. 1993) (explaining appointment of counsel in civil cases is “a privilege justified 

only by exceptional circumstances, such as the presence of facts and legal issues 

which are so novel or complex as to require the assistance of a trained practitioner” 

(alterations omitted)). 

AFFIRMED. 

Case: 14-14154 Date Filed: 09/16/2015 Page: 3 of 3