Case Name: Cathleen GARY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEKALB COUNTY GOVERNMENT, Vernon Jones, CEO, Dekalb County Sheriff, Thomas Brown, Dekalb Police Department, et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-04-18
Citations: 177 F. App'x 881
Docket Number: No. 05-13919; D.C. Docket No. 05-00158-CV-CAP-1
Parties: Cathleen GARY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEKALB COUNTY GOVERNMENT, Vernon Jones, CEO, Dekalb County Sheriff, Thomas Brown, Dekalb Police Department, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before MARCUS, WILSON and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 177
Pages: 881–882

Head Matter:
Cathleen GARY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEKALB COUNTY GOVERNMENT, Vernon Jones, CEO, Dekalb County Sheriff, Thomas Brown, Dekalb Police Department, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 05-13919
Non-Argument Calendar.
D.C. Docket No. 05-00158-CV-CAP-1.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
April 18, 2006.
Cathleen Gary, Decatur, GA, pro se.
Before MARCUS, WILSON and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Cathleen Gary filed her pro se complaint on November 23, 2004, alleging that various government entities and employees violated her civil rights. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court, sua sponte, dismissed Gary's claim for failure to serve the defendants with a copy of the summons and complaint within 120 days of filing her complaint. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m). Gary now appeals that dismissal, and we review for abuse of discretion. Brown v. Nichols, 8 F.3d 770, 775 (11th Cir.1993).
Gary argues that the district court did not provide her with notice before it dismissed her complaint and that she could show good cause for the delay because her delay was based on improper advice from the district court. Rule 4(m) states, "If service of the summons and complaint is not made upon a defendant within 120 days after the filing of the complaint, the court, upon motion or on its own initiative after notice to the plaintiff, shall dismiss the action without prejudice ." (emphasis added). Because there is no evidence in the record that Gary was given notice and an opportunity to "show[ ] good cause for the failure" to serve the defendants, Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m), the district court abused its discretion when it dismissed Gary's claim. We vacate the ruling of the district court and remand for further proceedings in accordance with Rule 4(m).
VACATED and REMANDED.