Willie Laster v. Albany Georgia Water Gas and Light Company , 517 F. App'x 777 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •             Case: 12-14342   Date Filed: 04/23/2013   Page: 1 of 3
    [DO NOT PUBLISH]
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    ________________________
    No. 12-14342
    Non-Argument Calendar
    ________________________
    D.C. Docket No. 1:10-cv-00051-WLS
    WILLIE LASTER,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    versus
    CITY OF ALBANY, GEORGIA, WATER, GAS & LIGHT COMPANY,
    Defendant-Appellee.
    ________________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Middle District of Georgia
    ________________________
    (April 23, 2013)
    Before PRYOR, MARTIN and FAY, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:
    Case: 12-14342     Date Filed: 04/23/2013    Page: 2 of 3
    Willie Laster appeals pro se the dismissal without prejudice of his complaint
    against the City of Albany, Georgia, Water, Gas & Light Company. The district
    court dismissed Laster’s complaint for failure to perfect service of process. Fed. R.
    Civ. P. 4(m). We affirm.
    The district court did not err by dismissing Laster’s complaint. Valid service
    of process is a prerequisite for a federal court to assert personal jurisdiction over a
    defendant, Pardazi v. Cullman Med. Ctr., 
    896 F.2d 1313
    , 1317 (11th Cir. 1990),
    and Laster failed to perfect service on the City. Laster did not serve the City when
    he filed his complaint in April 2010, and Laster failed to perfect service on the City
    by December 5, 2011, as ordered by the district court, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).
    Laster argues that he perfected service by mailing copies of his complaint to the
    mayor of the City and its human resources director, under Federal Rule of Civil
    Procedure 5(b)(2), but Rule 5 governs the service of “pleading[s] filed after the
    original complaint” and other papers, Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(a)(1). Laster was required
    instead to serve the City either by “delivering a copy of the summons and . . .
    complaint to its chief executive officer” or by “serving a copy of each in the
    manner prescribed by . . . state[] law,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(j)(2). Under Georgia law,
    Laster could serve the City by “delivering a copy of the summons attached to a
    copy of the complaint . . . to the chairman of the board of commissioners, president
    of the council of trustees, mayor or city manager of the city or to an agent
    2
    Case: 12-14342     Date Filed: 04/23/2013   Page: 3 of 3
    authorized by appointment to receive service of process.” 
    Ga. Code Ann. § 9-11
    -
    4(e)(5). Although we treat pro se litigants like Laster leniently, “we nevertheless .
    . . require[] them to conform to procedural rules.” Albra v. Advan, Inc., 
    490 F.3d 826
    , 829 (11th Cir. 2007) (quoting Loren v. Sasser, 
    309 F.3d 1296
    , 1304 (11th Cir.
    2002)).
    We AFFIRM the dismissal of Laster’s complaint.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 12-14342

Citation Numbers: 517 F. App'x 777

Judges: Pryor, Martin, Fay

Filed Date: 4/23/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024