Carroll v. Community Waste Disposal Inc et al

-1-
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
MARK CARROLL, 	§
Plaintiff, 	§
§
v. 	§ 	No. 3:25-CV-3468-X-BW
§
COMMUNITY WASTE 	§
DISPOSAL, INC., et al., 	§
Defendants. 	§ 	Referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge1
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The undersigned recommends that this action be dismissed without prejudice
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) for failure to serve the defendants.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Mark Carroll, proceeding pro se, filed this action on December 18,
2025, naming as defendants Community Waste Disposal, Inc., Greg A. Roemer, and
Jason A. Roemer. (See Dkt. No. 3 (“Compl.”).) He alleges that he was employed as
a Residential Driver for three days, from July 24 to July 27, 2023. (Compl. ¶ 11.)
On July 27, he filed a formal complaint for racial discrimination at the company’s
human resources department and the Texas Workforce Commission related to a
white employee’s selection for a position over him. (See id. ¶¶ 12-14.) After making
the complaint, he was removed from the work schedule and was terminated. (Id.
1 This pro se case was automatically referred to the undersigned magistrate judge for
case management by Special Order 3-251. (See Dkt. No. 1.)
Case 3:25-cv-03468-X-BW Document 6 Filed 03/23/26 Page 1 of 4 PageID <pageID>

-2-
¶¶ 17-18.) Carroll asserts claims for race discrimination and retaliation under 42
U.S.C. § 1981. (Id. ¶¶ 28-42.)
On December 18, 2025, the undersigned entered an order advising Carroll of
his responsibility to serve each of the defendants with a summons and a copy of the
complaint. (Dkt. No. 5.) The order pointed Carroll to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 as the
applicable rule, advised him that he could not be the person to serve Defendants per
Rule 4(c)(1), and also explained that Carroll had to file proof of service under Rule
4(l). (Id. at 1.) Importantly, the order warned Carroll that his lawsuit would be
subject to dismissal against any defendant that he had not served by March 18, 2026.
(Id. at 2.) The December 18 order also required Carroll to register as an Electronic
Case Filing (“ECF”) system user within 14 days. (Id.)
Carroll’s deadline to register as an ECF system user has passed, and he has not
registered. Additionally, Carroll has not shown that any Defendant has been served
or that he has made any effort to serve Defendants.
II. LEGAL STANDARDS AND ANALYSIS
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 provides that “[t]he plaintiff is responsible for having the
summons and complaint served within the time allowed by Rule 4(m) and must
furnish the necessary copies to the person who makes service.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
4(c)(1). After effecting service, the plaintiff must file proof of service with the court.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(l)(1). If the plaintiff fails to serve a defendant “within 90 days after
the complaint is filed, the court—on motion or on its own after notice to the
Case 3:25-cv-03468-X-BW Document 6 Filed 03/23/26 Page 2 of 4 PageID <pageID>

-3-
plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant,” unless
the plaintiff shows both (1) good cause for his failure to timely and properly effect
service and (2) good cause for the court to extend the time for service for an
appropriate period. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m); Lewis v. Sec’y of Pub. Safety & Corr., 870
F.3d 365, 369 (5th Cir. 2017). “A pro se plaintiff is entitled to notice before a district
court dismisses an action, sua sponte, for failure to timely serve the defendants under
Rule 4(m).” Drgac v. Treon, No. CIV.A.H-07-4283, 2008 WL 4746984, at *1 (S.D.
Tex. Oct. 27, 2008) (citing Lindsey v. U.S. R.R. Ret. Bd., 101 F.3d 444, 446 (5th Cir.
1996)). But “[a] plaintiff's pro se status and ignorance of the law do not constitute
cause for his failure to effect service in compliance with the rules.” Id. (citing Kersh v.
Derozier, 851 F.2d 1509, 1512 (5th Cir. 1988)). “The right of self-representation does
not exempt a party from compliance with relevant rules of procedural and
substantive law.” Wright v. LBA Hospitality, 754 F. App’x 298, 300 (5th Cir. 2019)
(quoting Hulsey v. State of Tex., 929 F.2d 168, 171 (5th Cir. 1991)).
This action should be dismissed pursuant to Rule 4(m). The record does not
reflect that Carroll has served any defendant in this action. The undersigned has
explained the consequences of failing to timely file proof of service. (See Dkt. No. 5
at 2.) Because Carroll has not demonstrated reasonable diligence in attempting to
serve any Defendant and has not shown good cause for an extension, this case
should be dismissed pursuant to Rule 4(m).
Case 3:25-cv-03468-X-BW Document 6 Filed 03/23/26 Page 3 of 4 PageID <pageID>

-4-
III. RECOMMENDATION
For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned recommends that this action be
DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to timely serve any defendant with
summons and a copy of the complaint as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).
SO RECOMMENDED on March 23, 2026.
______________________________________
BRIAN McKAY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT
A copy of this report and recommendation will be served on all parties in the manner
provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of this report and
recommendation must file specific written objections within 14 days after being
served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). To be specific,
an objection must identify the finding or recommendation to which objection is
made, state the basis for the objection, and indicate the place in the magistrate
judge’s report and recommendation where the disputed determination is found. An
objection that merely incorporates by reference or refers to the briefing before the
magistrate judge is not specific. Failure to file specific written objections will bar the
aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and legal conclusions of the
magistrate judge that are accepted or adopted by the district court, except upon
grounds of plain error. See Douglass v. United Services Automobile Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415,
1417 (5th Cir. 1996), modified by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)
(extending the time to file objections to 14 days).
Case 3:25-cv-03468-X-BW Document 6 Filed 03/23/26 Page 4 of 4 PageID <pageID>