1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MARK ELLIOTT FREEMAN, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 11-1046 (JEB) HUGO CHARVIS, et al. , Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pro se Plaintiff Mark Elliott Freeman filed his utterly incomprehensible Complaint on June 6, 2011. This pleading named 78 Defendant s, including “Hugo Charvis” [Chavez?] and “Mummad Khaddfi,” both of whom were described, along with most other Defendants, as living in the U.S. Virgin Islands. After listing all of the Defendants for ninet een pages, Plaintiff’s actual allegations cover only three pages, but me ntion everything from th e alteration of his New Jersey high school records to his decision to d ecline matching funds when running for President of the United States to a settleme nt conference in the Virgin Isla nds to his request for 46 trillion dollars. See Complaint at 20-22. Seventy-eight summonses were issued to Pl aintiff by the Clerk, and one month later, he returned about half of them in an envelope, on which was scrawled “refuse summons etc.” See ECF No. 2 at 41. It is unclea r whether he was refusing the summonses himself or whether certain Defendants had refused service. He appa rently had mailed the Comp laint to at least two Defendants, who thereafter separately moved to dismiss on a number of grounds. (One also explained, for the Court’s edification, that wh at underlies this lawsu it is a 1995 settlement conference in the Virgin Islands in which Pl aintiff took part. See ECF No. 6 (Motion of2 Defendant Todd Newman to Dismiss) at 2-3.) Wh en Plaintiff failed to oppose either Motion to Dismiss, despite warnings from the Court that fail ure to do so could lead to dismissal, the Court granted both Motions as con ceded on Aug. 25 and Sept. 23, 2011, respectively. See ECF Nos. 10-11, 15-16. As Plaintiff had meanwhile fa iled to provide proof of se rvice on any Defendant within the 120 days required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m), th e Court, on Oct. 4, 2011, ordered him to provide proof of service by Oct. 25, 2011, or show cause why the case should not be dismissed without prejudice. See Minute Order, Oc t. 4, 2011. Plaintiff never responded. Under Rule 4(m), “[i]f a defendant is not se rved within 120 days af ter the complaint is filed, the court – on motion or on its own after no tice to the plaintiff – must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defe ndant or order that service be made within a specified time.” The Court, therefore, afforded Plaintiff that notice on Oct. 4, but has heard nothing from him, rendering dismissal appropriate. See Sabbagh v. United Arab Emirates, 87 Fed. Appx. 188 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (“The district court properly dismisse d the action against appe llee Alami as well, as no proof of service or explanation for the lack of servic e was filed within 120 days of the action’s commencement.”) (citations omitted) ; Thomas v. Shinseki, 2009 WL 2414419, at *1 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (no abuse of discretion to dismi ss defendants who were not served within Rule 4(m)’s timeframe). To the extent Plaintiff’s return of half of the summonses almost four months ago is meant to imply that those Defendants refused service, he has not so informed the Court, which should not be in the business of guessing the meani ng of a plaintiff’s correspondence, even a pro se one. In any event, under Rule 4(l), “[u] nless service is waived, proof of service must be made to the court. Except for service by a United States ma rshal or deputy marshal, proof must be by the3 server’s affidavit.” No affidavit or any fo rm of proof has been offered, even regarding unsuccessful attempts at service. Finally, sin ce all named Defendants are alleged to reside in either New Jersey or St. Croix, wh ich is in a judicial district of the United States, foreign service rules do not apply. The Court, accordingly, will issue a contem poraneous Order dismissing the case without prejudice under Rule 4(m).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ James E. Boasberg JAMES E. BOASBERG United States District Judge Date: October 27, 2011