JAMES
v.
CITY OF GAINESVILLE FLORIDA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The district court adopted a magistrate judge's recommendation to dismiss plaintiff's case for failure to effect service of process. The court found that plaintiff did not demonstrate service, failed to respond to a show-cause order, and did not object to the dismissal recommendation, suggesting possible abandonment of the case.
The court held that dismissal without prejudice for failure to effect service is appropriate where plaintiff failed to demonstrate service, did not respond to a show-cause order, and did not object to the magistrate judge's recommendation for dismissal.
“Plaintiff did not demonstrate that she effected service, did not respond to the magistrate judge's show-cause order regarding service, and did not object to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation (ECF No. 10), which recommends dismissal for failure to effect service.”
Establishes the factual basis for dismissal—plaintiff's failure to effect service and failure to respond to procedural orders
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff filed a civil action against the City of Gainesville, Florida. Plaintiff did not effect service of process on the defendant and did not resp…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Extension Of Time For Service cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiff did not demonstrate that she effected service, did not respond to the magistrate judge's show-cause order regarding service, and did not object to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation (ECF No. 10), which recommends dismissal for failure to effect service. It appears Plaintiff may have abandoned her case.
At any rate, I agree with the magistrate judge that dismissal is appropriate. The magistrate judge properly considered whether-despite Plaintiff's failure to show good cause for any extended period-there might have been circumstances warranting an extension. See Bilal v. Geo Care, LLC, 981 F. 3d 903, 919 (11th Cir. 2020). I now adopt the report and recommendation in full, and I incorporate it into this order.
The clerk will enter a judgment that says, "This case is dismissed without prejudice for failure to effect service." The clerk will then close the file.
SO ORDERED on September 15, 2025.
s/ Allen Winsor Chief United States District Judge