FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T DECEMBER 20, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 10 26 2 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 8- cv -0 30 30 -WBH JAC QUELINE R. L AURENT,
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us JOHN E. POTTER, Po st m as te r Gen eral , Uni te d S ta te s Po st al Serv ic e, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee, KEVIN CULLEN , et al ., ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defen da nt s.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e North ern Dis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Dece m be r 20 , 20 10 )Befo re BLACK, BARKETT an d M ARCUS, Ci rcu itJu dg es .

PER CURI AM: Ja cque li ne R. Laur en t, p ro ceed in g pr o s e , app eal s the di st ric t co urt’s di sm is sa l wi th ou t p reju di ce o f he r em pl oym en t d is cri m in at io n s ui t ag ai ns t J oh n E. Po tt er, the Po st m as te r Gen eral of the Uni te d S ta te s Po st al Serv ic e (USPS ) fo r fai lu re t o p erfe ctservi ce o n h im in acco rd an ce wi th Fed . R. Civ . P. 4(i ) an d (m). Lau ren t al so ap pe al s t he di st ric t co urt’s d is m is sa l wi th pre jud ic e o f in di vi du al USPS em pl oyees Kev in Cu ll en an d Kathy Bran tl ey as i m pr op er d efen da nt s. Aft er rev ie w, we affi rm . I. Lau ren t fi rs t as se rts th e d is tri ctco urt erredin di sm is si ng he r co m pl ai nt ag ai ns t Po tt er fo r fai li ng to co m pl y wit h F ed . R. Civ . P. 4 b ecau se sh e co m m it te d a te ch ni cal erro r, whi ch was e xc us edby the de fen da nt s’ in it ia l ac kn owl ed gm en t t ha t th ey were p ro pe rly serv ed
. 1 Fed eral Ru le of C iv il Pro cedur e 4 (m ) al lo ws a c ou rt t o s uasp on te di sm is s
an act io n wi th ou t p reju di ce, o r or de r th atservi ce b e m ad e ata sp eci fic ti m e, if a de fen da ntis no t s erv edwit hi n 1 20 da y s af te r th e co m

pl ai ntis fil ed . Fed . R. Civ
.
We reviewfor a

buse of discr etion the district court’s dismissal without prejudice of a 1 plaintiff’s complaint for

failure to properly

serve a def

endant unde r F ed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Lepone-D empse

y v. Carroll Cnty. Comm’rs , 476 F.3d 1277, 1280 ( 11th Cir. 2007). 2P. 4( m ). Serv ic e o f th e Uni te d S ta te s, i n re le vantpa rt, re qu ire s t he fol lo win g:

(1 ) de li ve rin g aco py of th e su m m on s an d c om

pl ai ntto th e U.S. Att orne y forth e di st ric t wh ere t he act io n o rig in at ed , or t o a n AUSA wh om th e U.S. Att orne y de si gn at edin writ in g; an d (2 ) m ai li ng by regi st eredor c ert ifi edm ai l a c op y of t he
su m m on s an d c om

pl ai ntto th e Att orne y

Gene ral in W as hi ng to n, D.C. Id
. 4(i )(1 ). Serv ic e o f an off

ic ia l re qu ire s s en di ng a co py of th e su m m on s an d t he co m

pl ai nt by regi st eredor c ert ifi edm ai l t o t he off ic ia l. Id
. 4(i )(2 ). “ A def

en da nt ’s actua l
no ti ce i s n otsu ffi ci en t t o c ur e d efec ti ve ly execu te d s erv ic e.” Alb ra v. Adva n, In c. , 49 0 F .3d82 6, 8 29 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ). The di stric t co urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n d is m is si ng Laur en t’s Tit le VII co m pl ai ntpu rs ua ntto Fed . R. Civ . P. 4(i ) an d (m). The re co rdsh ows Laur en t rep eat ed ly fail edto effe ctua te servi ce o n P ot te r, in sp it e o f rec ei vi ng de ta il ed in st ru ct io ns reg ard in g p ro pe r se rv ic e fro m th e co urt an d h av in g a t l eas t t wo op po rtu ni ti es to pro pe rly serv e h im . Mor eo ve r, th e fac t t ha t Po tt er m ay ha ve ha d actua l n ot ic e o f th e p en di ng su itdo es no t ex cu se Laur en t’s d efec ti ve ly execu te d
se rv ic e. Se e Alb ra , 49 0 F .3dat 8 29
.

3II.

Lau ren t n ex t co nt en ds th e d is tri ctco urt erredindi sm is si ng Cu ll en an d Bran tl ey fro m he r co m pl ai ntbe cau se th ei r al le ge d c on du ctwas t he ba si s fo r fi li ng
an em pl oym en t d is cri m in at io n l aws ui t ag ai ns t USPS
. 2 Tit le VII pr ov id es th at th e “ he ad of t h e d e p a rtment, ag en cy , or un it ” th at al le ge dl y di sc riminat ed a g a i n s t th e pl ai nt iff “ sh al l be th e de fen da nt ” in an y ci vi l act io n by a fed eral em

pl oyee cl ai m in g di sc riminat io n. 42 U.S.C. § 20 00 e-1 6( c); se e New bo ld v. U.S. Pos ta l Se rv . , 6 14 F.2 d 46 , 47 (5 th Ci r. 19 80 ) (h ol di ng th at an in di vi du al em

pl oyee was no t a pr op er de fen da nt in a Tit le VII su it ag ai ns t th e USPS). The di stric t co urt d idno t co m m itpl ai n e rro r in di sm is si ng Cu ll en an d Bran tl ey fro m Laur en t’s Tit le VII co m

pl ai ntbe cau se Po tt er, the he adof t he ag en cy , was t he on ly pro pe r de fen da nt . Accor di ng ly, we affi rm th e d is tri ctco urt’s di sm is sa l wi th ou t p reju di ce o f Lau ren t’s co m pl ai nt , andth e co urt’s d is m is sa l wi th pr ejud ic e o f Cu ll en an d B ran tl ey as i m pr op er d efen da nt s. AFFIRMED.

We reviewdismiss als under F ed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) de novo. Clark v. Riley , 595 F.3d 2 1258, 1264 (11th Cir. 2010) (a ddressingRule 12(b)(6) dismiss als); Sinaltrai nal v. Coca-Cola Co. , 578 F.3d 1252, 1260 ( 11th Cir. 2009) (addr essingRule 12(b)(1) dismiss als). We re view for plain err or, howe ver, when a pa rty fails to object to a mag istrate’s r eport that is subsequently adopted by

the district court, if the r eport notifies the pa rties of the c onsequenc es of failingto object. Resolution Trust

Corp. v. Hallmark Builders, Inc
. , 996 F.2d 1144, 1149 ( 11th Cir. 1993).

4