The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
00-2384•Marc Moore v. City of Sedalia etc.
00-2384United States Court Of Appeals For The 8th CircuitOct 26, 2001
1 The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, Chief Judge, United States District Court
for the Western District of Arkansas.
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 01-2935
___________
Jo Ann Hoffmann, *
*
Appellant, *
* Appeal from the United States
v. * District Court for the Western
* District of Arkansas.
United States of America, under * [UNPUBLISHED]
designated authority of agent Hildegard *
Conte Perlstein, agent, Edward E. Hunt, *
III, agent, Air Force Legal Services *
Agency, *
*
Appellee, *
___________
Submitted: October 23, 2001
Filed: October 26, 2001
___________
Before WOLLMAN, Chief Judge, HANSEN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
Jo Ann Hoffmann appeals the district court’s 1 dismissal of her Federal Tort
Claims Act (FTCA) action for failure to serve the defendant. We grant her leave to
-- 1 of 2 --
-2-
appeal in forma pauperis, and we affirm the dismissal, modifying it to be without
prejudice.
We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing
Hoffmann’s action for insufficient service. See Bullock v. United States, 160 F.3d
441, 442 (8th Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (standard of review). In an FTCA action, the
United States is the real defendant. See 28 U.S.C. § 2679. To serve the United States
properly, Hoffmann had to deliver a copy of the summons and complaint to the U.S.
Attorney’s Office for the district in which the action was brought, as well as to the
Attorney General of the United States. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(i). Hoffman served
neither. Because more than 120 days had passed between the filing of the complaint
and the dismissal, the district court could dismiss the action sua sponte; however, the
dismissal should have been without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) (where
service is not timely made, “court . . . shall dismiss the action without prejudice”).
The judgment is affirmed, but the dismissal is modified to be without prejudice.
A true copy.
Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.