FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT A ugus t 10, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 10757 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 04 -000 04 -C V -4 C H A R L E S N E L S O N , J R ., P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s M A T T B A R D E N , D E A T a s k F o r c e A g e n t, K E V I N C H A N E Y , D E A T a s k F o r c e A g e n t, A D A M A L L E N , D E A T a s k F o r c e A g e n t, T F A R E E S E , D E A T a s k F o r c e A g e n t, G E R A L D S I S C O , S p e c ia l A g e n t, D R U G E N F O R C E M E N T A D M I N I S T R A T I O N , D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lle e s .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e S o u th e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( A ugus t10, 2005) B efo re T JO F L A T , D U B IN A an d F A Y , C i rcu i tJu d g es.Although N e lso n c ite d in hisc omp laint

to 4 2 U .S. C. § 19 83 , his p rosec laimsag ains t 1 fe deral de fendantssh ould, ins te a d, bec on str ue d a s f ile d pur su ant to B ivens , s e eB ivens , 4 03 U. S. at 39 2- 97 , 9 1 S. Ct. at 20 02 -0 5 (makingavaila blea c a us eof a c tio n f or mon e tary damag e s ag ains t federal off

icials in their individual capacities for a violation of a fe deral constituti onal right). 2 P E R C U R I A M: C ha r l e s N e l s on, I I , af

e de r a l pr i s one r , appe a l s pr o s e the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s s ua spon t e di sm i ss al w i tho utprej ud i ce of hi s pro se ci vi l com pl ai ntfor f ai l ure t o eff

ec t tim e ly s e rv ic e o f

p r o c e s s , p u r s u a n t to F e d .R .C iv .P . 4 ( m ) . N e ls o n f ile d th is c om pl a i ntpur s ua ntt o B i ve ns v. S i x U nknow n A ge nt s of F e de r a l B ur e a u of N ar cot i cs , 40 3 U . S . 38 8, 39 5-97 , 91 S . C t . 19 99 , 20 04 -05, 29 L . E d. 2d 61 9 (19 71 ), 1 a ga i ns tthe D rug E nf

or c e m e ntA dm i ni s tr a t i on ( “ the D E A ” ) , w hi c h i s a n a ge nc y of th e U . S . Ju st i ce D ep artm en t , an d fi v e D E A ag en t s i n th ei r i n d i v i d u al cap aci t i es, a l l e gi ng tha tthe de f

e nda nt s us e d e xc e s s i ve f or c e i n a rr e s t i ng hi m on m ul t i pl e drug o f f e n s e s . N e ls o n a r g u e s o n ap p e a l th a t th e c o u r t c o m m itte d r e v e r s ib le e rr o rin di s m i s s i ng hi s c om pl a i ntunde rR ul e 4( m ) , w i thoutc ons i de r i ng ( 1) w he the r“ good c a us e ” e xc us e d hi s f

a i l ur e t o c om pl e t e s e rvi c e on the de f e nda nt s , or( 2) i n the ab sen ce o f “ g o o d cau se, ” w h eth er an ex t en si o n o f t i m e fo r serv i ce, n ev erth el ess, w a s w a rr a n te d . F o rth e r e a s o n s s e t f o r th m o r e f

u lly b e lo w , w e a f

f irm . O n J a nua ry 30, 2004, a f t e rN e l s on pa i d the f

i l i ng f e e i n the i ns t a nta c t i on a n d , th e r e f

o r e , e le c te d n o t to p r o c e e d in f o rm ap a u p e r is ( “I F P ” ) , th e m a g is tr a te ju d g e is s u e d a n o r d e r , in s tru c tin g th e p la in tif f , a m o n g s t o th e rth in g s , e ith e rto3

pers on al l y s erve ea ch of the defendant s w i th the com pl ai nt , or t o see k form al w a iv e ro f

p e r s o n a l s e rv ic e . B e f o r e th e e x p ir a tio n o f

th e 1 2 0 - d a y p e r io d p e rm itte d f o rc o m p le tin g th is s e rvi c e , N e l s on f

i l e d am ot i on f

ora n e xt e ns i on of

thi s t i m e . I n s uppor t , N e l s on e xpl a i ne d tha the ha d notbe e n abl e t o c om pl y w i th the c our t ’ s i ns truc t i ons on s e rvi ng hi s c om pl a i ntbe c a us e the c our tc l e rk ha d notgi ve n hi m e i the rf i l e ds ta m p e d c o p ie s o f

th e c o m p la in t a n d s u m m o n s , o rth e f o rm s n e c e s s a ry f

o rh im to se ek w ai ver of f

orm al se rvi ce . N el son al so as se rt ed that , w hen h i s f am i l y had i nq ui re d abo utthe st atus of hi s c om pl ai nt , the cl erk’ s off i ce had i nform ed them th a t, a s ap r is o n e r , N e ls o n h a d to r e q u e s t s e rv ic e b y th e U .S . M a r s h a ll’s O f f ic e . O n A p r il 2 7 , 2 0 0 4 , th e m a g is tr a te g r a n te d N e ls o n ’s m o tio n a n d e x te n d e d h is t i m e t o p erfect service of p ro cess fo r an ad d i t i o n al 1 2 0 d ays, th ati s, u n t i l A u g u st 27, 2004. I n doi ng s o, the m a gi s tr a t e not e d tha tN e l s on e i the rha d r e c e i ve d no re spon se t o h i s r equest s f or the do cum ent s di sc usse d abo ve, or had b ee n mi s a d v i s e d b y th e c l e rk ’ s o f f i c e th a th e h a d t o s e e k s e rv i c e th r o u g h th e U . S. M a r s h a ll’s O f

f ic e . M o r e o v e r , th e m a g is tr a te in s tru c te d th e c le rk ’s o f f ic e to im m e d ia te ly s u p p ly N e ls o n w ith a ll th e p ap e rw o rk n e c e s s a ry f o rh im to c o m p le te s e rv ic e o f

p r o c e s s u p o n th e d e f

e n d a n ts . O n A ugus t30, 2004, a f t e rthi s s e c ond 120- da y t i m e pe r i od ha d e xpi r e d, theContrary to Nelson’s assertion that he properly serve d the U.S. Attorney ’s Off ice a nd 2 the Attorney

General of theUnited States, pursuant to Rule 4(i), the record contains no proof of such ser vice. 4 m ag i strat e i ssu ed a rep o rt , reco m m en d i n g th atth e d i stri ctco u rtsu a sp o n t e d i sm i ss N e ls o n ’s c o m p la in t w ith o u t p r e ju d ic e f o rf a ilu r e to p r o s e c u te it. I n m a k in g th is re com m endat i on , the m agi stra t e e xp l ai ned that(1) N el son sho ul d h ave c om pl et ed s e rvi c e on the de f

e nda nt s by A ugus t27, 2004; ( 2) the r e c or d di d notc ont a i n pr oof o f s u c h s e rv ic e ; a n d ( 3 ) th is f a ilu r e r e f le c te d N e ls o n ’s “la c k o f in te r e s t in proceedi ng w i th the prosecut i on of thi s a ct i on . ” N e l s on obj e c t e d t o thi s r e por t , a r gui ng tha t , a f t e rhe r e c e i ve d the m agi stra t e’ s A pri l 27 , 20 04 , ext ensi on order, he had com pl et ed the paperw ork n e c e s s a ry to o b ta in w a iv e ro f f o rm a l s e rv ic e , p u r s u a n t to F e d .R .C iv .P . 4 ( d ) . N el son al so st at ed that , because onl y one packetof form s r el at i ng t o thi s w ai ver ha d be e n r e turne d, a nd onl y the U . S . J us t i c e D e pa r tm e ntha d r e f us e d w a i ve r , he ha d a s s um e d tha ts e rvi c e on the r e m a i ni ng de f e nda nt s ha d be e n a c c om pl i s he d, a nd tha tthos e de f

e nda nt s w oul d a ns w e rthe c om pl a i nt . I n the a l t e rna t i ve , N e l s on c ont e nde d tha t( 1) he ha d e f f e c t e d s e rvi c e on the U . S . J us t i c e D e pa r tm e nt ; a nd 2 ( 2) a s apr o s e pr i s one r , he ha d be e n unabl e t o s e rve the i ndi vi dua l de f e nda nt s i n a m a nne rothe rtha n thr ough the m a i l . N e l s on, the r e f or e , r e que s t e d tha tthe c our tnot a d o p t th e m a g is tr a te ’s r e p o r t a n d , in s te a d , g r a n t h im a6 0 - d a y e x te n s io n toAfter the cour t entere d its order dismissing Ne lson’s case , Nelson filed a n untitled 3 pleading , reque sting that the c ourt aid him in servinghis complaint on the defendants. The mag istrate denie d this mot ion, expl ainingthat, beca use the c ourt had dismissed Nelson’s complaint without prejudice, N elson would haveto pursue his claims and perfe ct servic e in a new c ivil action. Sim ilarly, the cour t denied Ne lson’s subsequently filed motion requesting serviceby the U.S. Marshall’s Service, ag ain explaining that the c omplaint had been dismissed. The de fenda

nts explain on appeal that, beca use they were not serve d in this action and, 4 there fore , did not enter a

n appea ranc e, they

did not rece ive a c opy

of the c ourt’s dismissal order before they

filed this motion for partial dismissal. The de fenda

nts asserted that they

were not seeking dismissal for theother two 5 individual defenda

nts beca use (1) Nelson, in g ood faith, had attempted to effe ct per sonal servic e on them on September 8, 2004; a nd (2) helikely

could remedy

the def ect in ser vice. 5 c o m p le te s e rv ic e a n d a n o r d e rd ir e c tin g th e U .S . M a r s h a ll’s S e rv ic e to a s s is t h im . O n S e pt e m be r20, 2004, a f t e rc onduc t i ng ade novo r e vi e w of the r e c or d, in c lu d in g N e ls o n ’s o b

je c tio n s to th e m a g is tr a te ’s r e p o r t, th e c o u r t a d o p te d th is r e p o r ta n d s u as p o n t e d i s m i s s e d Ne l s o n ’ s c o m p l a i n twi th o u tp r e j u d i c e . On

3 O c t obe r1, 2004, the de f e nda nt s f i l e d aj oi ntm ot i on f

orpa r t i a l di s m i s s a l , a l ong w i th a supp ort i ng m em orandu m . T he defendant s a rgued, i n p art , thatN el son h ad 4 fa i l ed t o p er fe ctse rvi ce on atl ea stthree of the i nd i vi du al defe nd ant s. M oreover, 5 th e d e f e n d a n ts s ta te d th a t, “[ s ]in c e th e U n ite d S ta te s in s tru c ts its e m p lo y e e s to re fuse att em pt s a tw ai vi ng se rvi ce and requi re s per sonal se rvi ce on them [, ] i tw as ul t i m a t e l y i nc um be nton the pl a i nt i f f t o pe r s ona l l y s e rve the i ndi vi dua l s . ” T he courtul t i m at el y deni ed as m oo tthe defendant s’ m ot i on for part i al di sm i ss al b e c a u s e th e p le a d in g w a s f ile d a f te rth e c o u r t s u as p o n te d is m is s e d th e c a s e . O n O c t o b e r4 , 2 0 0 4 , N e l s o n f i l e d b y p l a c i n g i n th e p r i s o n ma i l s y s t e m a6

“m o tio n to a lte ro ra m e n d ju d g m e n t,” s e e k in g to a m e n d th e c o u r t’s s u as p o n te d is m is s a l o r d e r , p u r s u a n t to F e d .R .C iv .P . 5 9 ( e ) . N e ls o n a r g u e d th a t th e m a g is tr a te e rr o n e o u s ly h a d r e c o m m e n d e d th e d is m is s a l o f h is c o m p la in t w ith o u t g iv in g h im pri or no t i ce or an op po rtun i ty t o sho w “ go od cause” w hy se rvi ce has notbeen perf ec t ed. N el son al so cont ended that , i n ado pt i ng thi s r ec om m endat i on , the court had erre d i n fai l i ng t o g ranthi s r equest s f or (1) a n ext ensi on , and (2) as si st ance fr om the U . S . M ar shal l ’ s S ervi ce . In addi t i on , N el son con t ended that“ go od cause” f orhi s f a i l ur e e xi s t e d be c a us e ( 1) he w a s pr oc e e di ng pr o s e ; ( 2) the c om pl a i nt i nv ol ved m ul t i pl e def

endant s; and (3) the defendant s, atl ea stconstruct i vel y, had evaded servi ce by fa i l i ng t o n ot i fyhi m before hi s c om pl ai ntw as di sm i ss ed that they c ou l d n ot , base d o n a general po l i cy , w ai ve form al se rvi ce . T he defendant s r es po nd ed thatN el son’ s R ul e 59(e) m ot i on shou l d b e deni ed a s unt i m e l y be c a us e i tw a s f i l e d out s i de of

the t e n- da y de a dl i ne f

orf i l i ng s uc h a m o tio n . T h e d e f

e n d a n ts a ls o s u m m a r ily a r g u e d in as e p a r a te r e s p o n s e th a t th e R u le 59 (e ) m ot i on shou l d b e deni ed because the m agi stra t e had foun d thatN el son h ad f a i l e d t o pe r f

e c tt i m e l y s e rvi c e , a nd be c a us e the c our t ’ s di s m i s s a l w a s w i thout prej ud i ce . In re pl y, N el son (1) ar gu ed that , appl yi ng the com pu t at i on rul es c o n ta in e d in F e d .R .C iv .P . 6 ( a ) , h e tim e ly h a d f ile d h is R u le 5 9 ( e ) m o tio n w ith in t e n bus i ne s s da y s of

the c our t ’ s e ntry of

i t s or de rdi s m i s s i ng hi s c om pl a i nt ; a nd7

(2 ) re-arg u ed th atth e co u rth ad n o au th o ri ty t o su a sp o n t e d i sm i ss h i s case b ecau se he had d em on stra t ed “ go od cause” for nott i m el y per fe ct i ng se rvi ce . O n D e c e m be r8, 2004, the c our tde ni e d N e l s on’ s R ul e 59( e ) m ot i on. T he courtexpl ai ned that , t o the ext entthe defendant s had no tw ai ved form al se rvi ce , th e law d idn o t co m p el su ch w aiv er . T h e c o u rt also d iscu ss ed th at N elso n ’s r e q u e s t f o ra s s is ta n c e f

r o m th e U .S . M a r s h a ll S e rv ic e w a s u n tim e ly , a n d th a t, “[ h ]a v in g u n d e r ta k e n to tr a v e l o n h is o w n d im e a n d a v o id I F P - s c ru tin y o f h is c l a i m s , [ ] N e l s on ha [ d] r e m a i ne d— j us tl i ke a ny othe rl i t i ga nt

— r e s pons i bl e f or l i t i gat i ng hi s c as e a nd gett i ng the defendant s [ t i m el y] se rved. ” F i nal l y, the court expl ai ned that , t o the ext entN el son b el i eved thathe succ es sf ul l y had se rved som e of the defendant s, he, then, shou l d h ave s ou gh ta def aul tj ud gm entor, otherw i se , l i t i ga t e d hi s c a s e . O n F e brua ry 6, 2005, N e l s on f i l e d a n N O A , appe a l i ng both the c o u r t’s d is m is s a l o r d e ra n d its o r d e rd e n y in g h is R u le 5 9 ( e ) m o tio n . A s ap r e lim in a ry m a tte r , N e ls o n a s s e r ts th a t h is ap p e a l is tim e ly b e c a u s e h is f i l i ng of hi s R ul e 59( e ) m ot i on t ol l e d the t i m e he ha d f orf i l i ng hi s N O A of

the c our t ’ s di s m i s s a l or de r , a nd tha the t i m e l y f i l e d hi s N O A w i thi n 60 da y s of the c o u r t ’ s o r d e rd e n y i n g h i s Ru l e 5 9 ( e ) mo t i o n , p u r s u a n tt o Fe d . R. A p p . P. 4 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B) a nd 4( a ) ( 4) ( A ) ( i v) . C i t i ng t o the s e s a m e pr oc e dur a l rul e s , the de f e nda nt s r e s pond th a tNe l s o n ’ s R u l e 5 9 ( e ) m o t i o n d i d n o tt o l l th e t i m e h e h a d t o f i l e a n NO A“A post-judgment motion may be tre ated a s made pursua nt to either F ed.R.Civ.P. 59 or 6 60—reg ardle ss of how the motion is styled by the movant—depending on thety pe of relief sought.” See Ma

ys v. U.S. Post al Service , 122 F.3d 43, 46 ( 11th Cir. 1997). We, however , treats a motion that is fil ed within ten business days of the entr y of judgment and that asks f or re c on sideratio n o f m attersenc omp a sse d in thejudgment— su c h a s in theins tant c a se—a s a motion under Rule 59(e) . See F inch v. City of Vernon, 845 F .2d 256, 258-59 (11th Cir. 1988). 8 b e c a u s e , to b e tim e ly , h is R u le 5 9 ( e ) m o tio n h a d to b e f ile d b y O c to b e r1 , 2 0 0 4 . E ve n i f the de f e nda nt s w e r e notc ha l l e ngi ng j ur i s di c t i on, abs e ntthe f i l i ng of at i m e l y N O A , w e l a c k j ur i s di c t i on ove ra n appe a l . S e e W oode n v. B oa r d of R e g e n ts o f

U n iv e r s ity S y s te m o f

G e o r g ia ., 2 4 7 F .3 d 1 2 6 2 , 1 2 7 2 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) . T h u s , a s af

e d e r a l c o u r t o f

lim ite d ju r is d ic tio n , w e m u s t d e te rm in e s u as p o n te w he the ri tha s j ur i s di c t i on. S e e i d. a t1271. F o ra n N O A to b e tim e ly in ac iv il c a s e w h e r e th e U n ite d S ta te s is ap a r ty , it m u s t b e f

ile d “w ith in 6 0 d a y s a f

te rth e ju d g m e n t o ro r d e rap p e a le d f r o m is e n te r e d .” F e d .R .A p p .P . 4 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ) . R u le 4 ( a ) ( 4 ) o f th e F e d e r a l R u le s o f

A p p e lla te P r oc e dur e , how e ve r , pr ovi de s tha tthe t i m e f orf i l i ng a n N O A i s t ol l e d by the tim e ly f ilin g o f am o tio n to a lte ro ra m e n d ju d g m e n t u n d e rF e d .R .C iv .P . 5 9 ( e ) . F e d. R . A pp. 4( a ) ( 4) ( A ) ( i v) ; B r a gg v. B i l l H e a r d C he vr ol e t , I nc . , 374 F . 3d 1060, 10 64 n. 4 (11 th C i r. 20 04 ), ce rt . deni ed, 12 5 S . C t . 96 3 (20 05 ). A R ul e 59(e) 6 m o tio n m u s t b e f

ile d w ith in te n d a y s o f

th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s e n try o f th e ju d g m e n t. F ed. R . C i v. P . 59 (e ); R i ce v. F ord M ot or C o. , 88 F . 3d 91 4, 91 8 (11 th C i r. 19 96 ). In c a l c ul a t i ng thi s t i m e pe r i od:9

[T ] he day of the ac t , event , or defaul tfr om w hi ch the desi gn at ed pe r i od of t i m e be gi ns t o run s ha l l notbe i nc l ude d. T he l a s tda y of the p e r io d s o c o m p u te d s h a ll b e in c lu d e d , u n le s s it is aS a tu r d a y , a S unda y , oral e ga l hol i da y . . . . W he n the pe r i od of t i m e pr e s c r i be d or a l l ow e d i s l e s s tha n 11 da y s , i nt e rm e di a t e S a tur da y s , S unda y s , a nd l e ga l hol i da y s s ha l l be e xc l ude d i n the c om put a t i on. F e d .R .C iv .P . 6 ( a ) . H e r e , N e l s on f

i l e d by pl a c i ng i n the pr i s on m a i l hi s R ul e 59( e ) m ot i on on O ct ob er4, 20 04 . S ee F ed. R . A pp . P . 4(c) (1) ( appeal s by i nm at es confi ned i n an i ns t i tut i on) ; H ous t on v. L a c k, 487 U . S . 266, 276, 108 S . C t . 2379, 2385, 101 L . E d. 2d 24 5 (19 88 ) ( ho l di ng thatan N O A fi l ed by a pro se pri soner i s dee m ed f ile d o n th e d a te th a t th e p r is o n e rd e liv e r s it to p r is o n a u th o r itie s f o rm a ilin g ) . C ontr a ry t o the de f

e nda nt s ’ j ur i s di c t i ona l a r gum e nt , e xc l udi ng the da y the di s m i s s a l or de rw a s e nt e r e d a nd the i nt e rm e di a t e S a tur da y s a nd S unda y s , thi s f i l i ng w as w i thi n t en bu si ness days of the di stri ctcourt ’ s S ept em ber 20, 20 04 , di sm i ss al order. S ee F ed. R . C i v. P . 6(a) . N el son’ s t i m e f or fi l i ng hi s N O A , there fore , w as to lle d u n til th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d e n ie d h is R u le 5 9 ( e ) m o tio n o n D e c e m b e r8 , 2 0 0 4 . S ee B ra gg , 37 4 F . 3d at10 64 n. 4. T hu s, N el son t i m el y f i l ed an N O A on F ebruary 6 , 2 0 0 5 ; w e h a v e ju r is d ic tio n to r e v ie w h is ap p e a l o f b o th th e c o u r t’s d is m is s a l h is com pl ai ntand i t s deni al of hi s R ul e 59(e) m ot i on . S ee F ed. R . A pp . P . 4(a) (1)( B ). A s d is c u s s e d ab o v e , N e ls o n a r g u e s o n ap p e a l th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d in s uas pont e di s m i s s i ng hi s c om pl a i ntw i thoutf i r s tc ons i de r i ng w he the r“ goodTo the extent Nelson asser ts in his reply

brief tha t he has attached documents relating 7 to a subsequently

filed civil ac tion, to show that the defenda nts are still attempting to evade service , his brief doe s not contain any attachments. Rega

rdless, although we have the inherent discretionar

y authority to allow supplementation of the record on appeal, even to include evidenc e not reviewed by the district court, a

party may not append material to an a ppellate brief without first filing a motion re questingsupplementation. See Jones v. White, 992 F.2d 1548, 1566-67 (11th Cir. 1993). 10 c a u s e ” e x c u s e d h is f

a ilu r e to c o m p le te s e rv ic e o n th e d e f e n d a n ts . I n s u p p o r t o f

th is a r gum e nt , N e l s on a s s e r t s tha t , ( 1) dur i ng the f i r s t120- da y pe r i od, the c our tdi d not s uppl y hi m w i th the pape rw ork ne c e s s a ry t o c om pl e t e s e rvi c e ; ( 2) the c our ta nd the de f e nda nt s a f

f i rm a t i ve l y ha d m i s l e d hi m ora tt e m pt e d t o e va de s e rvi c e by ( i ) not consent i ng t o i m prop erse rvi ce , and (i i ) notst at i ng , un t i l af t erthe com pl ai nthad be e n di s m i s s e d, tha tthe U . S . J us t i c e D e pa rtm e ntha d age ne r a l pol i c y pr ohi bi t i ng i t s e m pl oy e e s f

r om w a i vi ng f

orm a l s e rvi c e ; ( 3) N e l s on ha d a tt e m pt e d t o s e rve the o f f ic ia l g o v e rn m e n t d e f

e n d a n t; a n d ( 4 ) h e w a s p r o c e e d in g a s ap r o s e p r is o n e r . N e l s on a l s o c ont e nds tha t , e ve n i f “ good c a us e ” di d note xi s t , the c our ts houl d ha ve gr a nt e d hi m a nothe re xt e ns i on of t i m e t o c om pl e t e s e rvi c e be c a us e , a l though he ha s f i l e d as ubs e que ntc i vi l a c t i on r a i s i ng the s a m e c l a i m s , i tm i ghtbe t i m e ba rr e d. 7 T o the ext entN el son i s c hal l engi ng the court ’ s deni al of hi s R ul e 59(e) m o tio n , w e r e v ie w th e d e n ia l o f aR u le 5 9 ( e ) m o tio n o n ly f o rab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n . L am bertv. F ul t on C ou nty, G a. , 25 3 F . 3d 58 8, 59 8 (11 th C i r. 20 01 ). M oreover,

“ [m ] ot i on s f

or re consi dera t i on shou l d n otbe used t o rai se l egal ar gu m ent s w hi ch c oul d a nd s houl d ha ve be e n m a de be f or e the j udgm e ntw a s i s s ue d. ” S a nde r l i n v.Rule 12(b)(5)provides that “[e]very defense, in law or f

act, to a c laim for re lief in any 8 pleading. . . shall be asserted in the re sponsive pleadingthereto . . . except that the following defenses may

at the option of the pleader bemade by motion: . . . (5) insufficiency of ser vice of proce ss . . ..” See F ed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(5). The for mer Rule 4(j) provided: 9 11 S em i n o l e T ri b e o f F l o ri d a, 2 4 3 F . 3 d 1 2 8 2 , 1 2 9 2 (1 1 th C i r. 2 0 0 1 ). R eg ard l ess, N e l s on f a i l e d t o r a i s e thi s c ha l l e nge i n hi s i ni t i a l br i e f . T hus , w e de e m w a i ve d a ny ch al l en g es t o th e d i stri ctco u rt ’ s d en i al o f N el so n ’ s R u l e 5 9 (e) m o t i o n . S ee A ccess N ow , I nc . v. S outhw e s tA i r l i ne s C o. , 385 F . 3d 1324, 1330 ( 11th C i r . 2004) (hol di ng thati ss ues notar gu ed i n i ni t i al bri ef ar e dee m ed w ai ved). A l though w e ha ve nota r t i c ul a t e d i n apubl i s he d opi ni on as t a nda r d of re v iew fo r s u a s p o n te d ism issa ls u n d erR u le 4 (m ), w e r ev iew a d istrict co u rt’s g r a n t o f am o tio n to d is m is s f

o rin s u f f ic ie n t s e rv ic e o f

p r o c e s s , p u r s u a n t to F e d. R . C i v. P . 12( b) ( 5) , “ by appl y i ng ade novo s t a nda r d t o the l a w a nd ac l e a re rr or s t a nda r d t o a ny f

i ndi ngs of

f a c t . ” P r e w i ttE nt e rpr i s e s , I nc . v. O r ga ni z a t i on of P e tr ol e um E xpor t i ng C ountr i e s , 353 F . 3d 916, 920 ( 11th C i r . 2003) , c e r t . de ni e d, 125 S . C t . 62 ( 2004) . W e a l s o ge ne r a l l y r e vi e w de novo ac our t ’ s i nt e rpr e t a t i on of 8 R u le 4 d e n o v o . Id . O n th e o th erh an d , w e r ev iew fo r a b u se o f d iscr etio n a c o u rt’s di sm i ss al w i tho utprej ud i ce of a pl ai nt i ff’ s c om pl ai ntfor f ai l ure t o t i m el y s erve a sum m on s a nd com pl ai ntun der the predece ss or t o R ul e 4(m ), form er F ed. R . C i v. P . 4(j ). B row n v . N i chol s, 8 F . 3d 77 0, 77 5 (11 th C i r. 19 93 ). M oreover, 9I f a servic eof

thesummo ns and

c omp laint

is n ot m a deup on

a de fendant within 120 days after

the filingof the c omplaint and the par ty on whose behalf such servicewas re quired c annot show g ood causewhy such ser vice wa s not made within that period, the ac tion shall be dismis sed as to that def endant without prejudiceupon the cour

t’s own initiative with notice to such party or upon motion. See F ed.R.Civ.P. 4(j) (1992). 12 w e r e v i e w f

o rab u s e o f

d i s c r e t i o n ac o u r t ’ s d e c i s i o n t o g r a n ta n e x t e n s i o n o f t i me unde rR ul e 4( m ) . H or e nka m p v. V a n W i nkl e A nd C o. , I nc . , 402 F . 3d 1129, 1132- 3 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . A pl a i nt i f

f i s r e s pons i bl e f

ors e rvi ng the de f

e nda ntw i th both as um m ons a nd th e c o m p la in t w ith in th e tim e p e rm itte d u n d e rR u le 4 ( m ) . F e d .R .C iv .P . 4 ( c ) ( 1 ) . T o the e xt e ntN e l s on na m e d the D E A a s ade f e nda nt , s e rvi c e onl y c oul d be e f f e c te d b y ( 1 ) e ith e r( a ) d e liv e r in g ac o p y o f th e s u m m o n s a n d o f

th e c o m p la in t to th e U n ite d S ta te s a tto rn e y f o rth e d is tr ic t in w h ic h th e a c tio n w a s b r o u g h t, o rto h is orhe rde s i gne e , or( b) s e ndi ng ac opy of the s um m ons a nd of

the c om pl a i ntby r e gi s t e r e d orc e r t i f

i e d m a i l a ddr e s s e d t o the c i vi l pr oc e s s c l e rk a tthe of f i c e of the U ni t e d S t a t e s a tt orne y ; a nd ( 2) s e ndi ng ac opy of the s um m ons a nd of

the com pl ai ntby re gi st er ed or cert i fi ed m ai l t o the A tt orney G ener al of the U ni t ed S ta te s . S e e F e d .R .C iv .P . 4 ( i) . O n th e o th e rh a n d , s e rv ic e o n th e in d iv id u a l a d u lt de f e nda nt s s ue d i n the i rpe r s ona l c apa c i t i e s c oul d be e f f e c t e d ( 1) pur s ua ntt o the l aw of the st at e i n w hi ch the di stri ctcourtw as l ocat ed, or i n w hi ch se rvi ce w as13

e f f e c t e d; or( 2) by pe r s ona l de l i ve ry of ac opy of

the s um m ons a nd of

the c o m p la in t. S e e F e d .R .C iv .P . 4 ( e ) . A s a n a l t e rna t i ve t o f

orm a l s e rvi c e on the i ndi vi dua l de f e nda nt s , N e l s on c oul d not i f

y the de f e nda nt s by m a i l of

the c om m e nc e m e ntof

ac i vi l a c t i on a nd re qu es tthatthey w ai ve form al se rvi ce of a s um m on s. S ee F ed. R . C i v. P . 4(d)(2). If ade f e nda ntdoe s notc om pl y w i th ar e que s tf orw a i ve r , “ the c our ts ha l l i m pos e the co st s su b seq u en t l y i n cu rred i n effecti n g serv i ce o n th e d efen d an tu n l ess g o o d cau se f orthe f a i l ur e be s how n. ” I d. A de f e nda nt , how e ve r , i s notr e qui r e d t o w a i ve f o rm a l s e rv ic e . S e e g e n e r a lly id . I n d e e d , th e n o te s to th e 1 9 9 3 a m e n d m e n ts to F e d .R .C iv .P . 4 ( d ) c la r if y th a t, s e rv ic e , its e lf

, m a y n o t b e e f

f e c tu a te d b y m a il w i tho utthe af

fi rm at i ve coop er at i on by the defendant . S ee A dv i soryC om m i tt ee N ot es t o the 19 93 A m endm ent s e nact i ng R ul e 4(d). I f apl a i nt i f

f f a i l s t o s e rve the de f

e nda nt ( s ) pr ope r l y w i th as um m ons a nd a c o m p la in t w ith in 1 2 0 d a y s o f th e p la in tif

f’s f ilin g o f h is c o m p la in t: the c our t , upon m ot i on oron i t s ow n i ni t i a t i ve a f t e rnot i c e t o the pl ai nt i ff , shal l di sm i ss the ac t i on w i tho utprej ud i ce . . . or di re ctthat s e rvi c e be e f

f e c t e d w i thi n as pe c i f

i e d t i m e ; pr ovi de d tha ti f the pl a i nt i f f s how s good c a us e f

orthe f a i l ur e , the c our ts ha l l e xt e nd the tim e f o rs e rv ic e f

o ra n ap p r o p r ia te p e r io d . F ed. R . C i v. P . 4(m ). “ G oo d cause ” e xi st s “ on l y w hen som e out si de fa ct or[, ] such as re l i ance on faul ty a dv i ce , ra ther than i nadv ert ence or negl i gence, prevent ed14

s e rvi c e . ” P r i s c o v. F r a nk, 929 F . 2d 603, 604 ( 11th C i r . 1991) ( di s c us s i ng “ good c a us e ” unde rf

orm e rR ul e 4(

j ) ) , s upe r s e de d i n pa r tby rul e a s s t a t e d i n H or e nka m p, 4 0 2 F .3 d a t 1 1 3 2 n .2 . W e r e c e nt l y ha ve e xpl a i ne d tha t , unde rthe c urr e ntR ul e 4( m ) , e ve n i n the abs e nc e of

“ good c a us e , ” di s tr i c tc our t s ha ve the di s c r e t i on t o e xt e nd the t i m e f or s e rv ic e o f

p r o c e s s . S e e H o r e n k a m p , 4 0 2 F .3 d a t 1 1 3 2 - 3 3 . I n r e a c h in g th is d e te rm in a tio n , w e e x p la in e d th a t th e S u p r e m e C o u r t, a lb e it a s d ic ta , d is c u s s e d in H e nde r s on v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 517 U . S . 654, 116 S . C t . 1638, 134 L . E d. 2d 880 ( 1 9 9 6 ) , th a t, u n d e rth e c u rr e n t R u le 4 ( m ) , “[ c ]o m p la in ts a r e n o t to b e d is m is s e d if se rved w i thi n 1 20 days or w i thi n such add i t i on al t i m e a s the courtm ayal l ow . ” S ee H orenkam p, 40 2 F . 3d at11 32 (quo t i ng H enders on , 51 7 U . S . at66 3, 11 6 S . C t . at 1 6 4 4 ) . M o r e o v e r , w e r e lie d o n th e A d v is o ry C o m m itte e ’s N o te s o n R u le 4 , in w hi c h the C om m i tt e e not e d tha tthe 1993 a m e ndm e ntt o the rul e “ a uthor i z e s the c our tt o r e l i e ve apl a i nt i f f of the c ons e que nc e s of

a n appl i c a t i on of

thi s s ubs e c t i on even i f there i s no g oo d cause show n, ” a nd i dent i fi ed as an exam pl e of w hen rel i ef m aybe j ust i fi ed as “ i f the appl i cabl e s t atut e of l i m i t at i on s w ou l d b arthe re fi l ed ac t i on , or i f the defendanti s e vadi ng se rvi ce or conceal s adefe cti n att em pt ed se rvi ce . ” S ee H orenkam p, 40 2 F . 3d at11 32 (c i t i ng F ed. R . C i v. P . 4(m ), A dv i sory C o m m itte e N o te , 1 9 9 3 A m e n d m e n ts ) .15

I n the i ns t a ntc a s e , N e l s on f a i l e d t o s how e i the rtha the pr ope r l y s e rve d the defe nd ant s nam ed i n h i s B i vens com pl ai nt , pu rs uantt o R ul es 4(e) or 4(i ), or that th e d e f e n d a n ts h e w a s s u in g in th e irp e r s o n a l c ap a c itie s w a iv e d s e rv ic e , p u r s u a n t to Ru l e 4 ( d ) , w i th i n th e 1 2 0 - d a y p e r i o d c o n t a i n e d i n Ru l e 4 ( m) . Se e Fe d . R. Ci v . P. 4( c ) ( pl a c i ng r e s pons i bi l i ty of s e rvi c e on the pl a i nt i f

f ) . T he c our ta l s o di d not di s m i s s the a c t i on unt i l a f t e ri tga ve N e l s on the oppor tuni ty t o obj e c tt o the m a g is tr a te ’s r e c o m m e n d a tio n to d is m is s , a n d a f te rit r e v ie w e d N e ls o n ’s o b je c tio n . M oreover, al tho ug h atl ea stsom e of the defendant s dem on stra t ed thatthey w er e aw ar e o f N elso n ’s co m p lain t b y f il in g th eir p ar ti al m o ti o n to d ism iss, a d ef en d an t’ s a c tua l not i c e i s nots uf

f i c i e ntt o c ur e de f

e c t i ve l y e xe c ut e d s e rvi c e . S e e S c hnabe l v. W e lls , 9 2 2 F .2 d 7 2 6 , 7 2 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 1 ) ( in te rp r e tin g th e 1 2 0 - d a y p e r io d a s it appe a r e d i n f

orm e rR ul e 4(

j ) ) , s upe r s e de d i n pa r tby rul e a s s t a t e d i n H or e nka m p, 402 F . 3d a t1132 n. 2. T o th e e x te n t N e ls o n is a r g u in g th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d in n o t e x p lic itly s t a t i n g wh e th e rh e h a d e s t ab l i s h e d “ g o o d c a u s e ” f o rth e d e l a y , i n B r o wn , we vaca t ed and rem anded a di stri ctcourt ’ s orderdi sm i ss i ng an ac t i on un der the form er R ul e 4(j ), w hen the pl ai nt i ff fa i l ed t o serve the defendant s unt i l se ven m on ths af t er s he f i l e d he rc om pl a i nt , a nd a f t e rthe c our tha d di s m i s s e d he rc l a i m s , be c a us e the di s tr i c tc our tha d notde t e rm i ne d w he the rthe pl a i nt i f f’ s f a i l ur e w a s s uppor t e d by16

“ good c a us e . ” S e e B r ow n, 8 F . 3d a t774- 75. I n the i ns t a ntc a s e , how e ve r , N e l s on f a i l e d t o e xpl a i n i n hi s obj e c t i ons t o the m a gi s tr a t e ’ s r e por tr e c om m e ndi ng d is m is s a l w h y “g o o d c a u s e ” e x c u s e d h is f a ilu r e . M or e ove r , i n the abs e nc e of e vi de nc e t o the c ontr a ry , w e pr e s um e tha tthe di stri ctcourt , i n d i sm i ss i ng N el son’ s c om pl ai ntun der R ul e 4(m ), det erm i ned that N e l s on’ s f

a i l ur e t o s e rve the de f

e nda nt s by A ugus t27, 2004, w a s note xc us e d by

“ good c a us e . ” S e e B urr e l l v. B oa r d of T rus t e e s of

G e or gi aM i l i t a ry C ol l e ge , 125 F .3 d 1 3 9 0 , 1 3 9 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ) ( e x p la in in g th a t “[ t]r ia l ju d g e s a r e p r e s u m e d to know the l a w a nd t o appl y i ti n m a ki ng the i rde c i s i ons ” ) . I nde e d, i n A pr i l 2004, a f te rc o n c lu d in g th a t N e ls o n ’s f a ilu r e to c o m p le te s e rv ic e w ith in 1 2 0 d a y s o f h is f i l i ng hi s c om pl a i nton J a nua ry 8, 2004, w a s a ttr i but abl e t o m i s a dvi c e f r om the m a gi s tr a t e i n i ni t i a l l y i ns truc t i ng hi m on s e rvi c e on c orpor a t i ons , i ns t e a d of on the go vernm ent , and t o the fa i l ure of the cl erk o f the courtt o sup pl y N el son w i th fi l es t a m pe d c opi e s of

the c om pl a i nt , the m a gi s tr a t e gr a nt e d N e l s on a n a ddi t i ona l 120 d a y s to c o m p le te s e rv ic e . O n the other hand, the defendant s’ un w i l l i ng ness t o acc epti m prop erse rvi ce , or t o w ai ve se rvi ce w here appl i cabl e, w er e not“ ou t si de fa ct or[s ] , such as re l i ance o n f a u l ty a d v i c e , ” th a tc o n s t i tu t e d “ g o o d c a u s e . ” S e e P r i s c o , 9 2 9 F . 2 d a t6 0 4 . As d is c u s s e d ab o v e , if

ad e f e n d a n t d o e s n o t c o m p ly w ith ar e q u e s t f o rw a iv e r , aTo the extent Nelson also has argued that the c ourt erred in dismissi nghis action 10 beca use he w as proc eedingwithout counsel, “[p] ro se pleadings a re he ld to a less stringent standard tha

n pleading s draf

ted by attorneys and will, theref ore, beliberally

construed.”See Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F .3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998). However, both the Supreme Court and this Court have c oncluded that a defendant’s pro sestatus in civil li tigation g enerally will not ex cuse mistakes hemakes re g ardingproce dural rule s. See McNe il v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113, 113 S.C t. 1980, 1984, 124 L .Ed.2d 21 (1993) ( explaining that the Court “never [had] sugg ested that proc edural rules in ordinary civil liti g ation shall be interpreted so as to excuse mistakes by those who proc eed without counsel,” bec ause “ experienceteaches that stri c t adh erenc eto t

heproc e dural re quire mentssp e c if ie d b y thele g isl atureis thebe st guara ntee of evenha nded administration of the la w”) ; see also W ay

ne v. Jarvis, 197 F.3d 1098, 11 04(1 1th

Cir . 1 99 9) (h oldingthat liberal c on str uc tio n o f t

heple a dingre quire mentsfo r p rose litigants does not equa

te with liberal de adlines). 17 d e f e n d a n t is n o t r e q u ir e d to w a iv e f o rm a l s e rv ic e . S e e F e d .R .C iv .P . 4 ( d ) . F ur the rm or e , a l though the di s tr i c tc our tha d di s c r e t i on t o gr a ntN e l s on as e c ond e xt e ns i on of

t i m e t o c om pl e t e s e rvi c e , e ve n i n the abs e nc e of “ good c a us e , ” N e l s on fa i l ed t o ci t e t o evi dence t o sup po rthi s a rgum entthatany f uture a ct i on s he f

i l ed b a s e d o n th e s e s a m e c la im s w o u ld b e tim e b a rr e d , o rth a t th e d e f e n d a n ts , in re fusi ng t o acc epti m prop erse rvi ce , w er e e vadi ng se rvi ce . S ee F ed. R . C i v. P . 4(m ); H or e nka m p, 402 F . 3d a t1132. T hus , the di s tr i c tc our tdi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on 10 i n fai l i ng t o sua spon t e gra ntN el son an ext ensi on of t i m e t o com pl et e s ervi ce . A c c o r d in g ly , w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t c o m m it r e v e r s ib le e rr o rin s u as p o n te d is m is s in g N e ls o n ’s c iv il c o m p la in t f o rf a ilu r e to e f

f e c t tim e ly s e rv i c e o f

p r o c e s s , p u r s u a n tt o Ru l e 4 ( m) . W e , th e r e f o r e , a f f i rm. AF F I RME D.18