NOT RECOMMENDED F OR F ULL-TEXT PUBLICATION F ile Nam e: 12a1212n.06 No. 10-3924 UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS F OR THE S IXTH CIRCUIT
ROBERT C. WOMBL E, I I , Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. ERI C H. HOL DER, J R., U.S. Attorney Gene ral, e t al., Def endants-A

ppellees. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COU RT FOR THE SOUTHERN DI STRI CT OF OH I O

Be fore : COOK and WHI TE, Circuit J udg es; SHARP, Dist rict Judge. * COOK, Circuit J udg e. Plaintiff R obert Wombl e appea ls the dismiss al of his Bivens suit ag ainst defe ndants Eric H. Holder, J r., Attorney Gene ral of the Un i t ed S t ates; Har ley G. L appin, Direc tor of the Fe dera l Bur eau of Prisons; Kim M. Whit e, Reg ional Di re ctor, Fe dera l Bur eau of Prisons; and J ohn Does I

throug h X. We AFF I RM.

I
. Wombl e filed his Bivens action ag ainst the defe ndants in their individu al an d officia l capa cities, alleg ing a violation of his speedy -trial rig hts, and demanding compensatory and punitive

The Honora

ble Kevin H. Sharp, United States District J udg e for the Middle District of * Tenne ssee, sitting by

desig nation.No. 10-3924

W omble v. H

older, et al damag es of a

pproxi mately

$350,000.00 dollars. Womble perfe cted se rvice on Holder a nd L appin but did not serve the United States. After the ex piration of 120 day s from the filing of Wombl e’s complaint, the district court issued an Orde r to Show Cause (“Show Cause Orde r”) , citing Rule 4(i) and fully explaining its require ment of service on the United States. The court’s Show Cause Orde r notif i ed Wombl e that it proposed to dismiss the complaint subject to rec eiving , within 20 day s, Wombl e’s response addre ssing why the complaint should not be dismiss ed for failure of service of proce ss. After more than a month without a response from Wombl e, the district court dismiss ed his claim without prejudice
. Wombl e now appea ls, ar gu i n g that, beca use he proper ly serve d Holder and L appin, the district court erre d by not aff ording him a reasonable time to cure his failed service on t h e United States, as Rule 4(i)(4) mandates.
I I
. We revie w for abuse of discretion a district court’s dismiss al of a complaint for insufficienc y of process, Habib v. Gen. Motors Corp. , 15 F.3d 72, 73 (6th Cir. 1994), reversing o n l y wh er e the
rec ord discloses “a clea

r err or of judgme nt.” Tahfs v. Proctor , 316 F.3d 5 8 4, 593 (6th Cir. 2003) (quoting Amernational Indus., Inc . v. Ac tion-Tungsram, Inc. , 925 F.2d 970, 975 ( 6th Cir. 1991)).
Rule 4(i) dict ates proce ss-serving require ments for actions ag ainst fede ral office rs and employ ees. Be y ond persona l service on named fede ral officer s , t h e Rule also calls for separ ate
-2-No. 10-3924

W omble v. H

older, et al
service on the Unit ed S tates by (1) personal or mail service of the summons and complaint on the United States Attorney in t h e d i s t ri ct in which the action is filed, and (2) mailing a copy of the
summons and complaint by reg istered or cer tified mail to the Attorney Gene ral of the United States at Washington, D.C. F ed. R. Civ. P. 4(i)(1).
Wombl e co m p l ains that, g iven his perf ecte d service on Holder and L appin, Rule 4(i)(4) require d the district court to “allow
. . . a rea sonable time to cure [t he] failure to
. . . serve the United States.” Yet Wombl e never raised the cure provision i n t h e d i s t ri ct court, despite the court’s order ing Wombl e to show cause why his complaint should not be dismiss ed. The Show Cause Orde r provided Wombl e both with time to cure by serving t h e United States and time to reque st further time to cure . During this 20-day period, howeve r, Wombl e neither asked for time to cure , nor cure d. In fac t, Wom ble did nothing in r esponse to the court’s Orde r other than r efile the rec ords showing service on Holder a

nd L appin. Having failed to raise the cure provision under Rule 4(i)(4) when g iven an opportunity to do so, Wom ble ca

nnot now claim er

ror in the Court’s f

ailure to grant a dditional tim e to cur e.
Discer ning no abuse of discretion, we AFF I RM the judgme nt of the district court.

-3-