Edwards v. Edwards, 84-2601
| Decision Date | 12 February 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 84-2601,84-2601 |
| Citation | 754 F.2d 298 |
| Parties | Herman K. EDWARDS, Appellant, v. Julia EDWARDS; John Edwards; Robert Lee Edwards; Milderine (Shannon) Edwards; Gloria (Edwards) Clark, Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Herman K. Edwards, appellant, filed a brief pro se.
No brief for appellee.
Before HEANEY, Circuit Judge, HENLEY, Senior Circuit Judge, and McMILLIAN, Circuit Judge.
Herman Edwards appeals from the district court's order dismissing his complaint for failure to prosecute. On May 29, 1984, Edwards filed his complaint; and on November 15, 1984, the district court dismissed the complaint because Edwards failed to serve a summons and complaint upon any of the defendants. We affirm the dismissal.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(j) provides:
If a service of the summons and complaint is not made upon a defendant within 120 days after the filing of the complaint and the party on whose behalf such service was required cannot show good cause why such service was not made within that period, the action shall be dismissed as to that defendant without prejudice upon the court's own initiative[.]
In the present case, 170 days passed between the filing of the complaint and the district court's dismissal. Moreover, the district court had warned Edwards on July 16, 1984, that his complaint would be dismissed if he did not begin serving the defendants. In these circumstances, the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Edwards' complaint. See Moore v. St. Louis Music Supply Co., 539 F.2d 1191, 1193 (8th Cir.1976).
Accordingly, the district court's order dismissing Edwards' complaint without prejudice is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lundahl v. Gross, 5:18-CV-05090-LLP
...shorter delays inexcusable. E.g., Colasante v. Wells Fargo Corp., 81 F. App'x 611, 613 (8th Cir. 2003) (one day); Edwards v. Edwards, 754 F.2d 298, 299 (8th Cir. 1985) (170 days). This factor favors Steinley. The third factor is the reason for delay. As explained above, Plaintiff is an expe......
-
Marshall v. Warwick
...of process); Umbenhauer v. Woog, 969 F.2d 25, 28 (3d Cir.1992) (defective service by international mail); Edwards v. Edwards, 754 F.2d 298, 299 (8th Cir.1985) (per curiam) (dismissal for failure to serve summons and complaint within 120 days after filing of South Dakota law allows for servi......
-
Bush v. Beemer, Docket No. 186360
...Del Raine, supra at 705; Lovelace, supra at 83; Braxton, supra at 242; DeLoss, supra at 710-711; Wei, supra at 371; Edwards v. Edwards, 754 F.2d 298, 299 (C.A.8, 1985). This standard is accordant with the trial court's customary control over the procedural aspects of trial and consistent wi......
-
Friedman v. Estate of Presser
...that court's." Del Raine, 826 F.2d at 705. See also Lovelace v. Acme Markets, Inc., 820 F.2d 81, 83 (3rd Cir.1987); Edwards v. Edwards, 754 F.2d 298, 299 (8th Cir.1985). As a final argument in support of the validity of their service of process, plaintiffs contended and the district court a......