Opinion ID: 2648612
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Improper Service of Process

Text: After considering the ADA claims and Eleventh Amendment defense, the only claims still at issue are Fox’s § 1983 and § 1985 claims against five District employees (Sessums, Waggener, Coats, Sigman, and French) in their individual capacities. The district court found that Fox failed to properly serve Waggener and Coats as the process server served their copies of the summons and complaint upon Sessums. Neither Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e) nor Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure allow service of a summons and complaint to a co-defendant. After Defendants challenged the service, the district court granted Fox an extension of time to properly serve the Defendants within thirty-three days and ordered him to file a Rule 7 reply within fourteen days of service. Despite additional extensions, Fox failed to serve Waggener and Coats or file a Rule 7 reply. The district court thus properly dismissed Fox’s claims against Waggener and Coats pursuant to Rule 41(b). See Larson v. 4 Case: 13-60148 Document: 00512493154 Page: 5 Date Filed: 01/08/2014 No. 13-60148 Scott, 157 F.3d 1030, 1031 (5th Cir. 2008) (“A district court sua sponte may dismiss an action for failure to prosecute or to comply with a court order.”).