Friemel v. Deleon ( 2023 )

Case: 23-10172 Document: 00516837595 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/28/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 23-10172
Summary Calendar FILED
____________ July 28, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce
Bueford James Friemel, Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Cesar Deleon; Randall County Sheriff; Cornerstone
Surveyor; Sierra Towing and Crushing; Frederic M.
Wolfram Firm; Wright Law; Randall County Internal
Affairs; Randall County Sheriff and Administration;
Darrell R. Carey, Lawyer,
Defendants—Appellees.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 2:22-CV-174
______________________________
Before King, Southwick, and Higginson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Bueford James Friemel, acting pro se, appeals the district court’s
dismissal of his suit without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-10172 Document: 00516837595 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/28/2023
No. 23-10172
4(m) for failing to show good cause as to his failure to timely serve
defendants. We review the district court’s dismissal under Rule 4(m) for an
abuse of discretion. Thrasher v. City of Amarillo, 709 F.3d 509, 512 (5th Cir.
2013).
On appeal, Friemel concedes that he did not serve defendants in a
timely manner or show good cause as to this failure but states that he was
unaware that he had to show good cause because he was denied counsel,
denied a time extension, and is appearing pro se. However, Friemel does not
argue that the district court improperly denied him counsel or a time
extension, and our review of the record indicates that Friemel’s motions
seeking such treatment were correctly denied. Furthermore, “[a] litigant’s
pro se status neither excuses his failure to effect service nor excuses him for
lack of knowledge of the Rules of Civil Procedure.” Id. (footnote omitted).
Accordingly, we find no error in the district court’s without-prejudice
dismissal of this suit.
AFFIRMED.
2