Opinion ID: 2975410
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: dismissal of the plan

Text: Marzuola argues that the district court erred by dismissing the Plan sua sponte under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) without providing him with notice as required by the rules. He further argues that the district court improperly dismissed the claim with prejudice by not specifying that it was being dismissed “without prejudice.” Continental Tire counters that the district court did not dismiss the Plan sua sponte, and so no notice was required, and that even if the district court did order the dismissal sua sponte, the error did not prejudice Marzuola and therefore is not reversible. Because all of Marzuola’s substantive claims were properly dismissed by the district court, there are no remaining claims against the Plan, and so the Rule 4(m) issue is moot. Cf. Willing v. Lake Orion Cmty. Sch. Bd. of Trs., 924 F. Supp. 815, 821 (E.D. Mich 1996) (denying motion to dismiss on Rule 4(m) grounds as moot when all claims dismissed on other grounds). Moreover, while this circuit does not appear to have addressed the issue, others have concluded that lack of 6 notice under Rule 4(m) will not mandate reversal unless the plaintiff was prejudiced. See, e.g., Blaney v. West, 209 F.3d 1027, 1032 (7th Cir. 2000) (“[W]e join the First and Ninth Circuits in finding that where the plaintiff was not prejudiced by the lack of notice, the error is harmless.” (citing Ruiz Varela v. Sanchez Velez, 814 F.2d 821, 823 (1st Cir. 1987)). Marzuola was not prejudiced by the lack of notice, as all of his substantive claims with dismissed simultaneously with the Plan. For the reasons stated, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court. 7