Opinion ID: 2973254
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Claims Against the Individual SCC Defendants

Text: SCC’s dispositive motion below argued that the district court should dismiss the individual SCC defendants for lack of proper service pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5). SCC pointed out that in a previous order the district court had already ruled that the attempted service of the summons and complaint on the individual SCC defendants by delivering those documents to SCC did not comply with the requirements of Rule 4 for service on individuals. The district court agreed and dismissed these defendants based on its previous conclusion that they had not been properly served. That dismissal was proper. -6- No. 04-1924 McGee v. Schoolcraft Community College Below Plaintiff argued that the delivery of a copy of the summons and complaint to SCC’s offices was adequate service of the individual SCC defendants under Rule 5. The district court agreed that the method of service complied with the requirements of Rule 5, but pointed out that service of the summons and complaint is governed by the more stringent standards of Rule 4 which were not met by the method of service employed. This conclusion was sound. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4, 5. Plaintiff’s only argument on appeal is that delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to an agent of SCC at SCC’s office was adequate service of the individual defendants pursuant to Rule 4(e). Specifically, Plaintiff posits that since she served the individual defendants in their official capacities, their “usual place of abode” was their office at SCC. However, this argument was not presented to the district court. Below, Plaintiff only argued that the method of service complied with Rule 5. This court generally will not review issues raised for the first time on appeal. Barner v. Pilkington N. Am., 399 F.3d 745, 749 (6th Cir. 2005); Lepard v. NBD Bank, 384 F.3d 232, 236 (6th Cir. 2004); United States v. Ninety-Three (93) Firearms, 330 F.3d 414, 424 (6th Cir. 2003). The appellate court’s function is “to review the case presented to the district court, rather than a better case fashioned after a district court’s unfavorable order.” Barner, 399 F.3d at 749. There is no reason to depart from this general rule.1 The district court’s dismissal of the individual SCC defendants was not error. 1 Even if the argument had been presented properly, there is no authority to support Plaintiff’s counter-intuitive argument that an individual’s office can be considered his usual place of abode for service of process pursuant to Rule 4(e). -7- No. 04-1924 McGee v. Schoolcraft Community College