IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

FORT WORTH DIVISION 

TERRY LEE MORRIS, § 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

Plaintiff, 

vs. Civil Action No. 4:22-CV-102-P(BJ) 

BOBBY LUMPKIN, et al., 

Defendants. 

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND NOTICE AND ORDER 

(With Special Instructions to the Clerk of Court) 

In this case, plaintiff Teny Lee Morris, proceeding pro se, has filed a civil case naming as 

defendants Bobby Lumpkin, George Gallagher, and Scott Wisch. ECF No. 1. Resolution of the case 

was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to the provisions of28 U.S.C. § 636(b) 

and Miscellaneous Order No. 6. 1 The findings, conclusions and recommendation of the United States 

Magistrate Judge are as follows: 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: 

A NATURE OF THE CASE 

This case is a new civil action. 

B. PARTIES 

Teny Lee Morris is the plaintiff. He listed as defendants Bobby Lumpkin, George Gallagher, 

and Scott Wisch. ECF No. 1. 

C. LEGAL ANALYSIS 

In response to an early deficiency order, Morris paid the entire filing and administrative fees 

of $402.00. ECF No. 5. Because Morris paid the full filing and administrative fees, the Court 

1

Order for the Adoption of Rules for the Exercise of Powers and Performances of duties by United 

States Magistrate Judges, signed May 5, 2005. 

Case 4:22-cv-00102-P Document 9 Filed 05/17/22 Page 1 of 4 PageID 99
directed the clerk of Court to deliver summons forms to Morris for completion and return to the clerk 

of Court for issuance. ECFNo. 6. Morris was informed thatthe clerk ofComi would issue summons 

to him once completed. Id. Although Morris then submitted proposed summons for six persons, the 

clerk of Court properly issued summonses to Morris only for the three named defendants in this case, 

Lumpkin, Gallagher, and Wisch. ECF Nos. 7-8. That took place on March 11, 2022. In the Court's 

Order issued on March 2, 2022, Morris was expressly informed "of the 90 day time limit from the 

date of filing of the complaint to effect service of the summons and complaint. See Fed R. Civ. P. 

4(m)." ECF No. 6 n. 1. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) requires a plaintiff to serve a copy of the summons and 

complaint upon defendants within 90 days after the complaint is filed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). That rule 

also provides that "if a defendant is not served [ within that time frame] 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." Id. The above-styled and numbered cause of 

action was filed on Februa1y 9, 2022. ECF No.I. In this case, 90 days after Februaiy 9, 2022 was 

May 10, 2022. The Court warned Morris of the applicable deadline on March 2, 2022, and summons 

were issued to Morris on March 11, 2022. Yet, as of the date of this findings, conclusions, and 

recommendation, no returns of service have been filed showing that service was completed upon any 

of the three defendants. Because Morris has not timely completed service of process, in spite of the 

Comi's warning and notice of the application of Rule 4(m), Morris's claims against each defendant 

should be dismissed without prejudice, unless he files proof of completion of service by the time for 

filing objections. 

2 

Case 4:22-cv-00102-P Document 9 Filed 05/17/22 Page 2 of 4 PageID 100
RECOMMENDATION 

It is therefore RECOMMENDED that the district judge should dismiss all claims against 

each unserved defendant without prejudice under authority of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), 

unless plaintiff Morris files proof of service upon each defendant before the time for objections to 

be filed in this case. 

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT TO PROPOSED 

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION 

AND CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE TO OBJECT 

A copy of this repoti and recommendation shall be served on all patiies in the manner 

provided by law. Under28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l), each pmiy to this action has the right to serve and file 

specific written objections in the United States District Comito the United States Magistrate Judge's 

proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation within fourteen (14) days after the party has 

been served with a copy of this document. The United States District Judge need only make a de 

novo determination of those portions of the United States Magistrate Judge's proposed findings, 

conclusions, and recommendation to which specific objection is timely made. See 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b )(1 ). Failure to file by the date stated above a specific written objection to a proposed factual 

finding or legal conclusion will bar a patty, except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice, 

from attacking on appeal any such proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the 

United States District Judge. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto Ass 'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th 

Cir. 1996) (en bane), superseded by statute 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l) (extending the deadline to file 

objections from ten to fomieen days). 

3 

Case 4:22-cv-00102-P Document 9 Filed 05/17/22 Page 3 of 4 PageID 101
ORDER 

Under 28 U.S.C. § 636, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff is granted until May 31, 2022 to serve 

and file written objections to the United States Magistrate Judge's proposed findings, conclusions 

and recommendation. 

It is further ORDERED that the above-styled and numbered action, previously referred to 

the United States Magistrate Judge for findings, conclusions and recommendation, be and is hereby, 

RETURNED to the docket of the United States District Judge. 

SIGNED May i /, 2022. n 

TON 

TATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

4 

Case 4:22-cv-00102-P Document 9 Filed 05/17/22 Page 4 of 4 PageID 102