Hansan v. Fairfax County School Board , 405 F. App'x 793 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 10-1218
    ADAM M. HANSAN,
    Plaintiff – Appellant,
    v.
    FAIRFAX COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD,
    Defendant – Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District
    Judge. (1:09-cv-00558-GBL-TRJ)
    Submitted:   November 22, 2010              Decided:   December 21, 2010
    Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    David P. Olslund, Arnold, Maryland, for Appellant. Thomas J.
    Cawley, Jill Marie Dennis, HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LLP, McLean,
    Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Adam Hansan appeals from the district court’s order
    dismissing      his    case      without     prejudice       for    untimely       service.
    Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
    Rule   4(m)     of    the   Federal    Rules        of    Civil    Procedure
    requires a plaintiff to serve a defendant within 120 days after
    a complaint is filed.               The district court must extend the 120-
    day period if the plaintiff shows good cause for his failure to
    timely    serve        the     defendant.            Fed.     R.        Civ.      P.     4(m).
    Additionally, the district court has discretion to extend the
    period    if    the    plaintiff       can   show    excusable          neglect    for     his
    failure to serve.             Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b); Henderson v. United
    States, 
    517 U.S. 654
    , 662-63 (1996).                   We review a dismissal for
    untimely or improper service for abuse of discretion.                                  Shao v.
    Link Cargo (Taiwan) Ltd., 
    986 F.2d 700
    , 708 (4th Cir. 1993).
    We   hold   that     the    district    court       did    not     abuse    its
    discretion in dismissing Hansan’s case.                      Service was untimely,
    as   it   was       made     almost    fifteen      months     after        the    original
    complaint was filed and over seven months after the case was
    transferred         from   the      United   States     District         Court     for     the
    District of Maryland to the United States District Court for the
    Eastern District of Virginia.
    Further, Hansan was unable to establish good cause or
    excusable      neglect       justifying      the    delay.         Hansan      argues     that
    2
    there was good cause because he was effectively acting pro se
    while     he    searched      for      local       counsel      after   his    case    was
    transferred and he believed that the Defendant had already been
    served.        Pro se status, however, is insufficient to establish
    good cause, even where the pro se plaintiff mistakenly believes
    that service was made properly.                     See McNeil v. United States,
    
    508 U.S. 106
    ,    113    (1993)     (“[W]e       have      never   suggested      that
    procedural       rules       in     ordinary       civil     litigation       should    be
    interpreted      so    as     to    excuse     mistakes      by    those    who     proceed
    without counsel.”);           Jonas v. Citibank, 
    414 F. Supp. 2d 411
    , 416
    (S.D.N.Y.      2006)     (holding      that    a    pro    se    plaintiff’s      mistaken
    belief that service was proper did not amount to good cause).
    Additionally, Hansen provided no justification for his seven-
    month delay in finding local counsel in order to effect proper
    service,       thus      failing       to      demonstrate         excusable        neglect
    warranting an extension.
    Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order.                       We
    dispense       with    oral        argument    because       the    facts     and     legal
    contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
    court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
    AFFIRMED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-1218

Citation Numbers: 405 F. App'x 793

Judges: Wilkinson, Niemeyer, Gregory

Filed Date: 12/21/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024