IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

BEAUMONT DIVISION

WINGROVE FELTON ROBINSON,

Plaintiff,

v. 

SOKOLOVE LAW FIRM, MOTLEY RICE, 

MARY SPIKES, TRAVEL INN, and A 

PATES,

Defendants.

 NO. 1:23-CV-00134-MJT-ZJH

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION DISMISSING CASE

This case is assigned to the Honorable Michael J. Truncale, United States District Judge, 

and is referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge for pretrial management. On 

April 5, 2023, pro se Plaintiff Wingrove Felton Robinson filed the instant Complaint (Doc. No. 

1), and on April 19, 2023, Robinson paid this Court’s filing fee. Doc. No. 4.

On April 20, 2023, the undersigned issued an Order and Advisory Regarding Service of 

Process (“Order and Advisory”) (Doc. No. 5), informing Robinson that he must “serve[e] a copy 

of the complaint and a summons to appear on each defendant, in accordance with the requirements 

of federal law.” Doc. No. 5 at 1. The Order and Advisory ordered Robinson to serve all 

Defendants to this case within ninety (90) days of the issuance of the Order, and required that he 

file a return of proof of service with the Clerk of Court thereafter. Id. Further, on page three of 

the Order and Advisory, the undersigned provided guidance and instruction on how Robinson may 

effectuate such service. Id. at 3.

On April 21, 2023, the Clerk’s Office issued summonses to Robinson to serve three (3) of 

the five (5) defendants in this case. Doc. No. 6. On that same date, the undersigned issued to 

Case 1:23-cv-00134-MJT-ZJH Document 11 Filed 07/31/23 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:

63
2

Robinson an Order to Provide Defendants’ Contact Information, noting that “Plaintiff has failed 

to provide addresses to serve Defendants Sokolove Law Firm and Motley Rice,” and that he “must

provide the information necessary to issue a proper summons” pursuant to Rule 4 of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure. Doc. No. 7 at 1 (emphasis in original). Therefore, the court ordered 

Robinson to provide the address information for both defendants by “Friday, May 5, 2023.” Id.

at 2 (bold and underlining in original).

Since the undersigned issued this Order, Robinson has failed to provide the addresses for 

Defendants Sokolove Law Firm and Motley Rice. Further, on May 26, 2023, Robinson filed a

Certified Mail Green Card, showing that he attempted to serve Sokolove Law Firm—without a 

proper summons from the Clerk’s Office—and that Defendant Spikes has refused to be served. 

Doc. No. 10 at 1–2.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) is clear:

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 the defendant or order that service be made within a 

specified time. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must 

extend the time for service for an appropriate period.

FED. R. CIV. P. 4(m).

Robinson filed his Complaint (Doc. No. 1) on April 5, 2023.1 On April 20, 2023, the court 

ordered Robinson to effectuate service of summons on all Defendants within ninety (90) days of 

the court’s order. Doc. No. 5. Robinson therefore had until Wednesday, July 19, 2023 to effectuate 

service of summons. FED. R. CIV. P. 6(a)(1) (computation of time). In failing to serve the 

1 Pursuant to Rule 4(m), therefore, service on each defendant was due by July 5, 2023. See FED. R. CIV. P.

6(a)(1)(C) (exclude legal holidays, such as Independence Day from computation of time).

Case 1:23-cv-00134-MJT-ZJH Document 11 Filed 07/31/23 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:

64
3

defendants, Robinson has therefore violated Rule 4(m) and this court’s orders. “Under Rule 41(b), 

a district court may dismiss an action sua sponte if the plaintiff fails to comply with court orders.” 

Nottingham v. Warden, Bill Clements Unit, 837 F.3d 438, 440 (5th Cir. 2016) (footnote and 

citations omitted); McCullough v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 1126, 1127 (5th Cir. 1988) (“A district court 

may dismiss an action for failure of a plaintiff to prosecute or to comply with any order of the 

court. . . . The court possesses the inherent authority to dismiss the action sua sponte, without 

motion by the defendant.”) (internal citations omitted); Spiewak v. Kimberley, No. 4:22-CV00813-SDJ-CAN, 2023 WL 3690002, at *1–2 (E.D. Tex. May 3, 2023) (dismissing action sua 

sponte under Rule 41(b) where plaintiff failed to comply with court order to pay an initial part of 

filing fee and provide current physical mailing address).

In the present matter, Robinson has failed to comply with two of the court’s previous 

Orders. Doc. Nos. 5, 7. First, the court ordered Robinson to serve all defendants within ninety 

(90) days of its April 20, 2023 Order and Advisory, and then “file a return (i.e., proof) of service 

with the Clerk of Court for the Defendants immediately after service is made on the Defendants.” 

Doc. No. 5 at 1. More than ninety (90) days have passed, and Robinson has failed to file any such 

proof of service on the Defendants. The only proof that he has submitted is a Certified Mail Green 

Card, which indicates that he attempted to serve Defendant Mary Spikes. The Order and Advisory

was clear that “[t]he complaint and summons may be served by any person who is not a party and 

who is at least eighteen years of age.” Doc. No. 5 at 3, ¶ 2 (bold and underlining in original) (citing 

FED. R. CIV. P. 4(c)(2)). Robinson’s single attempt to serve one of the Defendants was therefore 

improper, and in violation of the court’s order to do otherwise.

Second, Robinson failed to comply with the court’s second Order (Doc. No. 7) in this 

action, which required Robinson to file a supplemental filing with the court by May 5, 2023, with 

Case 1:23-cv-00134-MJT-ZJH Document 11 Filed 07/31/23 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:

65
4

the contact information for Defendants Sokolove Law Firm and Motley Rice. Doc. No. 7 at 1–2. 

This deadline has long passed, and Robinson has failed to comply with this court order as well. 

Therefore, the undersigned must recommend that the court sua sponte dismiss this action 

for two reasons: First, Robinson has not effectuated service upon all Defendants within the period 

required by Rule 4(m), and second, Robinson has failed to comply with two of the court’s Orders

in this action (Doc. No. 5, 7).

I. Recommendation

The undersigned recommends DISMISSING the present action for Plaintiff Wingrove 

Felton Robinson’s failures to effectuate service of summons on the Defendants and failure to 

comply with the court’s previous Orders.

II. Objections

Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c), each party to this action has the right to file objections to 

this report and recommendation. Objections to this report must (1) be in writing, (2) specifically 

identify those findings or recommendations to which the party objects, and (3) be served and filed 

within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this report. See 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1)(c); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2). A party who objects to this report is entitled to a de novo

determination by the United States District Judge of those proposed findings and recommendations 

to which a specific objection is timely made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c); FED. R. CIV. P. 

72(b)(3). 

A party’s failure to file specific, written objections to the proposed findings of fact and 

conclusions of law contained in this report, within fourteen (14) days of being served with a copy 

of this report, bars that party from: (1) entitlement to de novo review by the United States District 

Judge of the findings of fact and conclusions of law, see Rodriguez v. Bowen, 857 F.2d 275, 276-77 

Case 1:23-cv-00134-MJT-ZJH Document 11 Filed 07/31/23 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:

66
5

(5th Cir. 1988), and (2) appellate review, except on grounds of plain error, of any such findings of 

fact and conclusions of law accepted by the United States District Judge. See Douglass v. United 

Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996).

_________________________

Zack Hawthorn

United States Magistrate Judge SIGNED this 31st day of July, 2023.

Case 1:23-cv-00134-MJT-ZJH Document 11 Filed 07/31/23 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:

67