[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________

No. 20-14718

Non-Argument Calendar

_________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:20-cv-00102-JRH-BKE

PRECIOUS WILEY,

Surviving Spouse of Randy B. Wiley,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT,

EISENHOWER ARMY MEDICAL CENTER,

Defendants – Appellees.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Georgia

_________________________

(May 26, 2021)

Before JORDAN, GRANT and DUBINA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

USCA11 Case: 20-14718 Date Filed: 05/26/2021 Page: 1 of 5
2

Appellant Precious Wiley appeals pro se the district court’s order sua sponte

dismissing her pro se complaint under the Federal Tort Claims Act alleging the 

wrongful death of her husband due to an Eisenhower Army Medical Center 

(“EAMC”) employee’s negligence. The district court found that Wiley failed to 

effect proper service on EAMC and the other defendants, the Department of 

Veterans Affairs, Office of General Counsel, and the United States Government, 

Veterans Affairs. On appeal, Wiley contends that she served each of the 

defendants with a copy of the complaint by certified mail and mailed copies of the 

certified notices to the Veterans Affairs office and the United States Attorney for 

the Southern District of Georgia. After a review of the record, we affirm the 

district court’s order of dismissal.

I.

Although we generally review a district court’s interpretation of Rule 4 de 

novo, we review the district court’s order dismissing a complaint without prejudice 

for failing to timely serve a defendant under Rule 4 for abuse of discretion. 

Lepone-Dempsey v. Carroll Cty. Comm’rs, 476 F.3d 1277, 1280 (11th Cir. 2007). 

While we construe the pleadings of pro se litigants liberally, we still require them 

to conform to procedural rules. Albra v. Advan, Inc., 490 F.3d 826, 829 (11th Cir. 

2007).

USCA11 Case: 20-14718 Date Filed: 05/26/2021 Page: 2 of 5
3

To serve the United States, Rule 4 requires, in relevant part: (1) sending a 

copy of the summons and complaint to the civil process clerk at the United States 

Attorney’s Office by registered or certified mail; and (2) sending a copy of the 

summons and complaint to the Attorney General of the United States in 

Washington, D.C., by registered or certified mail. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(i)(1). To serve 

a United States agency, Rule 4 requires, in relevant part: (1) serving the United 

States; and (2) sending a copy of the summons and complaint to the agency by 

registered or certified mail. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(i)(2). A court must allow a 

reasonable time for a party to cure its failure to serve a required person under Rule 

4(i)(2), if the party has served either the United States Attorney or the United 

States Attorney General. Fed. R. Civl. P. 4(i)(4).

Pursuant to Rule 4, “[t]he plaintiff is responsible for having the summons 

and complaint served within the time allowed by Rule 4(m).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

4(c)(1). Rule 4(m) provides, in part, that “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.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). If the 

plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, however, “the court must extend the 

time for service for an appropriate period.” Id. If the district court finds that a 

plaintiff has failed to show good cause for failing to effect service timely, it must 

USCA11 Case: 20-14718 Date Filed: 05/26/2021 Page: 3 of 5
4

consider whether circumstances warrant an extension of time based on the facts of 

the case. Lepone-Dempsey, 476 F.3d at 1282. “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.” Id.

II.

Based on our review of the record, we conclude that the district court did not 

abuse its discretion in dismissing Wiley’s complaint without prejudice for her 

failure to serve the defendants properly. Although Wiley contends on appeal that 

she sent a copy of the complaint to all parties, she does not state that she sent a 

copy of the summons. If she did send the certified notices to the United States 

Attorney for the Southern District of Georgia and the Veterans Affairs office, she 

still failed to comply with Rule 4(i) because she did not serve the United States 

government. 

Moreover, Wiley has not shown good cause warranting an extension of time 

for her to effectuate service properly. Wiley does not assert that the district court 

failed to consider factors that might have justified an extension of time. Therefore, 

she has abandoned that issue. See Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th 

Cir. 2008) (stating that issues not briefed on appeal by a pro se litigant are deemed 

abandoned). Regardless, the district court considered that dismissing Wiley’s

USCA11 Case: 20-14718 Date Filed: 05/26/2021 Page: 4 of 5
5

complaint would not prejudice her because, based on the dates alleged in her 

complaint, her claim would be timely. Accordingly, for the aforementioned 

reasons, we affirm the district court’s order dismissing Wiley’s complaint without 

prejudice.

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 20-14718 Date Filed: 05/26/2021 Page: 5 of 5