United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
William I. Arbuckle, U.S. Magistrate Judge.
action brought primarily pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
Plaintiff, Sean Anthony Ashelman, alleges that Defendants,
Evangelical Community Hospital and its staff, Bradley Mayer,
M.D., Heather Smith, R.N., Beverly Lloyd, R.N, Susan Snook,
R.N., Patricia Cox, Rose Edwards, and Diane Zimmerman (the
Hospital Defendants) violated his civil rights by allegedly
forcibly medicating him against his will and drawing blood
without his permission. Plaintiff has also brought suit
against Corporal Sean Burns of the Buffalo Valley Regional
Background and Procedural History
Plaintiff is a former prisoner, who filed a civil rights
complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1) along with an
application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2). I
granted Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma
pauperis (Doc. 24). On June 22, 2018, Plaintiff filed an
Amended Complaint. (Doc. 10). The Amended Complaint named the
following two categories of Defendants: (1) Corporal Sean
Burns of the Buffalo Valley Regional Police Department, and
(2) Evangelical Community Hospital and its staff members,
including Bradley Mayer, M.D., Heather Smith, R.N., Beverly
Lloyd, R.N, Susan Snook, R.N., Patricia Cox, Rose Edwards,
and Diane Zimmerman.
to my order (Doc. 24) dated July 13, 2018, I granted
Plaintiff the opportunity to provide the clerk the correct
address of Cpl. Sean Burns. Plaintiff failed to do so, and
Defendant Burns has not been served. He should be dismissed
as a party from this lawsuit.
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides, in relevant
If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the
complaint is filed, the court-on motion or on its own after
notice to the plaintiff-must dismiss the action without
prejudice against that defendant or order that service be
made within a specified time. But if the plaintiff shows good
cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for
service for an appropriate period.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).
procedural history of this case reflects that Plaintiff was
initially placed on notice of his obligation to properly
serve each defendant in my order on December 27, 2017. (Doc.
5). Upon receipt of the returned Waiver of Service of Summons
for the Hospital Defendants, (Docs. 13-20), Plaintiff was
notified not only of his obligation to serve Defendant Burns,
but also of the consequences for his failure to do so.
Furthermore, in my order granting the Motion for Leave to
Proceed in forma pauperis, Plaintiff was directed to
provide the Court with the correct mailing address for
Defendant Burns on or before Friday July 27, 2018. (Doc. 24).
Because he has failed to serve Defendant Burns, all claims
against Defendant Burns should be DISMISSED without prejudice
pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m).