Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determin ed that thi s opinio n should not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except under the limit ed circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 50938 Su m m ar y Cal endar R E V E R E N D P A U L B E N J A M IN C H U KAAY IKA , P l a i n ti ff

- A p p ell a n t v. J OHNNYS UT T ON; DAVI D R OS AD O; F ED ER I CKR EY NOL DS ; S HANNA L . B E A U L IE U , D efen da n t s - A pp el l ees

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i ted S tates D i stri ct C ou rt f or t h e W est ern D i st ri ctof T exas US DC 3 : 0 9
- CV

- 0 0 1 7 1
- DB B ef ore D AV IS, SM ITH , an d D E N N IS, C i rcui tJu dg es . P E R C U R I A M: * Pl ai nt i f f PaulB enj am i n Chuka Ayi ka f i l e d hi s pr o s e c o m pl ai nti n t he di st r i c tc o ur to n M ay1 5, 2 00 9. H e t he r e af t e rf i l e d f o ure xe c ut e d s u m m on ses w i t h the di st ri ctcou rt

— on e forea ch defenda n t . Th e executed sum m on ses l i st ed A y ik a a s th e p r o c e s s s e r v e r ; a lle g e d th a t h e s e r v e d p r o c e s s o n th e d e fe n d a n ts v ia c e r t i f i e d m ai l , r e t ur n r e c e i ptr e que s t e d, s e ntt o t he i rpl ac e s o f e m pl o ym e nt(t he United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D May 14, 2010 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk Case: 09-50938 Document: 00511111893 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/14/2010N o. 09- 50938

On July 22, 200 9, the Unit ed S tates Department o f J us t ic e informed Ayika th at it 1 believed his attempted service was in sufficient and advis ed him of th e proper metho ds by whichh e could effectuat e service. Ayikawas also advised that th e defendants “awaitpro per servic e, ” me anin gth at th eydidnotwaive servic e. 2 U n it e d S t a t e s A t t o r n e y ’s O ff ic e fo rth e W e s t e r n D is t r ic t o f T e x a s a n d t h e F B I ’s E lP a so O ff

i ce) on M a y 2 8 , 20 0 9 , an d Ju n e 1 3 , 20 0 9 ; an d i n cl u d ed retu rn rece i p ts t hatdi d notb ear t he de fe nda nt ’ s s i gna t ur e s . On Sep t e m be r1 6, 2 00 9, t he 1 di s t r i c tc o ur ti s s ue d a n o r de rt o sho w ca us e t hatdi r e c t e d Ayi ka t o e xp l ai n why i t shoul d no t di s m i s s t he ac t i o n f o r fai l ur e t o pr o pe r l y s e r ve pr o c e s s . A f t er r e c e i vi ng Ayi ka ’ s r e s po ns e , t he di s t r i c tc o ur tdi s m i s s e d t he a c t i o n wi t ho ut p reju d ice on O cto b e r 9, 2 0 0 9 , p u rs u a n t to F e d e ra l R u le o f C ivil P ro ce d u re 4 (m ). A yi ka app eal s. A y ik a ’ s in itia l b r ie f w h o llyfa ils to a d d r e s s a n y le g a l is s u e s r e le v a n t to h is ap pe al , i nc l udi ng w he t he r he ad e qua t e l y s e r ve d pr o c e s s o n t he de fe n da n t s or w het hert he di st r i c tcour tshoul d h ave di sm i ss ed hi s c as e. I ti s axi om at i c t hat

“ [ a] n app el l an taba n don s al li ssues n otrais ed an d argu ed i n i t s i ni t i albri ef on a p p ea l . ” C i n elv. Con n i ck , 1 5 F. 3d133 8, 134 5 ( 5t h Ci r . 1 99 4) . Al t ho ugh Ayi ka at l east i den t i f

i es po i n t s of

err or i n hi s r epl y bri ef, A yi ka ha s w ai ved t h ese a r g u m e n ts fo r fa ilin gto p r e s e n t t h e m in h is in itia l b r ie f. S ee Pi ney W o o ds Cou n t ry Lif

e Sch . v. S h el lO i lCo. , 9 0 5 F .2 d 8 4 0 , 8 5 4 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 0 ); seealso Yohey v . Col l i ns , 985 F . 2d 222 , 226 ( 5th C i r. 199 3) ( “ T h i s C ou rtw i l lnot c on si der a cla im ra is e d fo rth e fir s t t im e in a re p lyb r ie f.”). I n a n ye v e n t , a n d a lt e r n a t iv e ly , w e fi n d n o e r r o rin th e d is t r ic tc o u r t ’s di sm i ssalof

t h i s c ase w i t h ou tpr ej u di ce. Fed eralR u l e of C ivi lP rocedure 4( e) provi des t h at a p l ai n t i f f m ay serve process on an i n di vi du ali n a j u di ci aldi st ri ct o f th e U n ite d S ta te s b y : ( 1) fo l l o w i ng s t at e l aw f o rs e r vi ng a s um m o ns i n a n a c t i o n b r o ugh t i n court s of gen eralj u ri sdi ct i on i n t h e st ate w h ere t h e di st ri ctcourt i s l ocat ed or w h ere s ervi ce i s m ad e; or Case: 09-50938 Document: 00511111893 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/14/2010N o. 09- 50938

3 ( 2) doi ng any of

t he f ol l ow i ng: (A) d elive ri n g a cop y of th e su m m on s a n d o f th e com p l a i n t t o th e in d iv id u a l p e r s o n a lly ; ( B ) l eavi ng a c opy of eac h at t he i ndi vi dual ' s dw el l i ng orusual pl ace of abod e w i t h som eon e of su ita b l e age an d d i scr et i on w h o res i des t h ere; or ( C ) del i ver i ng a c opy of ea c h t o a n agentaut hor i ze d by a p p o in tm e n t o rb yla w to re c e iv e s e r v ic e o f p r o c e s s . Fed . R. Ci v. P. 4 ( e ) . A yi ka di d no ts e r ve pr o c e s s us i ng anyo f t he m e t ho ds es t abl i she d i n R ul e 4 ( e) ( 2) . Acc or di ngl y, A yi ka’ s at t em pt ed s er ve of pr oc es s w as s u ffic ie n t o n lyif it c o m p lie d w ith T e x a s s ta te la w . T e x a s la w a u th o r iz e s s e r v i c e o f p r o c e s s v ia re g is te r e d o rce r tifie d m a il, w i t h ret u rn recei pt r equ est ed. Tex . R . C iv. P . 106 ( a) ( 2) . Th e ret u rn recei pt m u st bear t he “ addre ss ee ’ s si gnat ure . ” Tex. R . C iv. P. 107. I n t hi s c as e, s er vi c e w as ad dressed t o t h e defen da n t s pers on al l y, bu tt h ei r s i gn atures do not app ear on th e re tu r n re c e i p ts. T h u s , A y ik a ’ s a tt e m p te d s e r v ic e w a s in s u ffic ie n t u n d e rR u le 4. W e f u rt h er note t h at, al t h ou gh t h e defenda n t s ap pa rentl y h ad act u alnoti ce o f th e in s u ffic ie n t s e r v ic e , th e “d e fe n d a n t’s a c tu a l n o ti c e o f th e litig a tio n . . . is i n su ff i ci en t t o sa ti sfy R u l e 4 ' s req u i rem en ts. ” W ay v. Mu el l er B rass Co. , 840 F .2 d 3 0 3 , 3 0 6 (5 th C ir . 1 9 8 8 ).

“ I f a de fe nda nti s no ts e r ve d wi t hi n 1 20 da ys a f t e r t he c o m pl ai nti s f i l e d, t he c o ur t. . . m us tdi s m i s s t he a c t i o n wi t ho utpr ej udi c e a ga i ns tt hatde fe nda nt o r o rd e r th a t se rv ice b e m a d e w ith in a sp e cified tim e .” F e d . R . C iv. P . 4 (m ). “[I]f t h e pl ai n t i f

f show s good cau se f

or the fai l u re, the court m u stext en d the t i m e f or serv i ce for an ap p rop ri a te p eriod . ” I d. As t he di s t r i c tc o ur tc o r r e c t l y e xp l ai ne d, A yi ka fai led t o present any reasons w h y i tshou l d extend t h e t i m e peri od f or filin gs e r v ic e , in s te a d a r g u in go n lyth a t h e p r o p e r lys e r v e d th e d e fe n d a n ts . W e t h u s fi n d n o a b u s e o f d is c r e t io n in th e d is t r ic tc o u r t ’s d e c is io n to d is m is s A y ik a ’s Case: 09-50938 Document: 00511111893 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/14/2010N o. 09- 50938

4 a c tio n w ith o u t p r eju d ic e . S ee Tri an a v. Un i t ed S t ate s , 91 1 F . 2 d 11 5 5 , 11 5 7 ( 5 th C i r. 199 0) (revi ew i n g t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s di sm i ssalof a com pl ai n tup on l ack of s e r v ic e fo ra b u s e o f d is c r e tio n ). A c c o r d in g ly , w e A F F IR M th e ju d g m e n t o f th e d is tr ic t c o u r t. Case: 09-50938 Document: 00511111893 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/14/2010