TAYLOR v. RHODES

Page 1 of 8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PANAMA CITY DIVISION
CARL TAYLOR, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 5:24-cv-274-MW-MJF
TERRY L. RHODES,
Defendant.
/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
In 2024, Plaintiff filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Doc. 1.
Despite the undersigned instructing Plaintiff to effect service of process
timely and in compliance with Rule 4(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, Plaintiff has failed to effect service of process. The District
Court, therefore, should dismiss this civil action without prejudice.
BACKGROUND
On December 24, 2024, Plaintiff initiated this civil action pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Doc. 1. Plaintiff is suing Defendant Terry L. Rhodes,
the former executive director of the Florida Department of Highway
Safety and Motor Vehicles. Plaintiff is suing Defendant in her individual
Case 5:24-cv-00274-MW-MJF Document 25 Filed 02/09/26 Page 1 of 8

Page 2 of 8
capacity. Id. at 3. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant, on December 1, 2024,
denied Plaintiff due process when she said that Plaintiff “had a susended
License, Tags and registiations . . . .” Id. at 4 (errors in original).
A. 	The Undersigned’s Order to Effect Service of Process
On January 9, 2025, the undersigned ordered Plaintiff to effect
service of process on Defendant pursuant to Rule 4 of the Federal Rules
of 	Civil 	Procedure. 	Doc. 	6 	at 	1–2. 	Consistent 	with 	Rule 	4(m), 	the
undersigned ordered Defendant to effect service of process within 90
days. Id. The undersigned specifically warned Plaintiff that his failure to
effect service of process timely and in accordance with Rule 4 likely would
result in dismissal. Id. at 2.
B. 	The First Order to Show Cause
On April 23, 2025, the undersigned ordered Plaintiff to show cause
why this case should not be dismissed for his failure to effect service of
process timely and his failure to comply with a court order. Doc. 8.
On May 1, 2025, Plaintiff moved for additional time to serve
Defendant. Doc. 11. The undersigned granted the motion and ordered
Plaintiff to effect service by June 23, 2025. Id. at 5. The undersigned also
Case 5:24-cv-00274-MW-MJF Document 25 Filed 02/09/26 Page 2 of 8

Page 3 of 8
informed Plaintiff that failure to effect service by June 23 likely would
result in dismissal.
C. 	Plaintiff’s Failure to Comply with Rule 4(e) and Rule 4(l)
On June 11, 2025, Plaintiff filed the “proof of service” page of the
summons. Doc. 17. On that page, Plaintiff indicated that he personally
effected service of Defendant by: (1) leaving a copy of the summons at the
“Neil Kirkman Building;” and (2) mailing a copy of the summons and
complaint from the Bay County Jail to Defendant. Doc. 17 at 2.
As to Plaintiff’s claim that he left a copy of the summons at the “Neil
Kirkman Building,” Plaintiff did not specify:
• 	the date he left the summons at the building;
• 	the time he left the summons at the building; and
• 	to whom he handed the summons, if anybody.
Plaintiff also did not state how leaving a copy of the summons at the “Neil
Kirkman Building” would constitute service of Defendant consistent with
the requirements of Rule 4(e).
Furthermore, insofar as Plaintiff was an inmate of the Bay County
Jail in May and June 2025, it is incredible that Plaintiff escaped from a
Case 5:24-cv-00274-MW-MJF Document 25 Filed 02/09/26 Page 3 of 8

Page 4 of 8
jail in Bay County, obtained a means of transportation to Tallahassee,
travelled to Tallahassee (where the Neil Kirkman Building is located),
left a copy of the summons there, then traveled back to Bay County, and
checked himself back into the Bay County Jail undetected.
As to Plaintiff’s claim that he mailed a copy of the summons and
complaint from the Bay County Jail, Plaintiff did not specify to what
address he mailed the summons and complaint. Regardless, Plaintiff also
has not demonstrated how mailing the summons and complaint—to
whatever 	address—would 	constitute 	service 	according 	to 	the
requirements of Rule 4(e).
D. 	The Second Order to Show Cause
Because it was readily apparent that Plaintiff had not effected
service of process consistent with Rule 4(e), on July 22, 	2025, the
undersigned again ordered Plaintiff to show cause why this case should
not be dismissed for failure to comply with a court order and failure to
effect service of process timely. Doc. 18.
Case 5:24-cv-00274-MW-MJF Document 25 Filed 02/09/26 Page 4 of 8

Page 5 of 8
On August 5, 2025, Plaintiff filed a response to the show-cause
order. Doc. 20. Plaintiff stated: “I filed and served a summons and
complaint were (sic) the executive Director works . . . .” Id.
D ISCUSSION
“Service 	is 	a 	jurisdictional 	requirement,” 	and 	“a 	court 	lacks
jurisdiction over the person of a defendant when that defendant has not
been served.” 	Hemispherx Biopharma, Inc. v. Johannesburg Consol.
Investments, 553 F.3d 1351, 1360 (11th Cir. 2008) (citing Pardazi v.
Cullman Med. Ctr., 869 F.2d 1313, 1317 (11th Cir. 1990)). “The plaintiff
to an action is responsible for having the summons and complaint served
on the defendant” in accordance with Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Fitzpatrick v. Bank of New York Mellon, 580 F. App’x 690, 693
(11th Cir. 2014); Lepone-Dempsey v. Carroll Cnty. Com’rs, 476 F.3d 1277,
1280-81 (11th Cir. 2007).
Unless service is waived, the person effecting service must file proof
of service with the district court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(l)(1). The serving party
“bears the burden of proof with regard to validity of service.” Anderson v.
Case 5:24-cv-00274-MW-MJF Document 25 Filed 02/09/26 Page 5 of 8

Page 6 of 8
Dunbar, 678 F. Supp. 2d 1280, 1297 (N.D. Ga. 2009) (citing Sys. Sings
Supplies v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 903 F.2d 1011, 1013 (5th Cir. 1990)).
As to the timeliness of service, Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure provides in relevant part:
(m) Time Limit for Service. 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). Even absent a showing of good cause, a district court
“must 	still 	consider 	whether 	any 	other 	circumstances 	warrant 	an
extension of time based on the facts of the case.” Bilal v. Geo Care, LLC,
981 F.3d 903, 919 (11th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Here, Plaintiff claims that he mailed a copy of the summons and
complaint—but he doesn’t specify to whom he mailed them and to what
address. 	Likewise, 	Plaintiff 	incredibly 	claims 	that—despite 	being
incarcerated—he left a copy of the summons at the “Neil Kirkman
Building” on some unspecified date, at some unspecified time, perhaps
with some person—whom Plaintiff never identifies.
Case 5:24-cv-00274-MW-MJF Document 25 Filed 02/09/26 Page 6 of 8

Page 7 of 8
Assuming that 	Plaintiff’s allegations 	regarding his attempt 	at
service of process are truthful, Plaintiff still has not established—as
required by Rule 4(l)(1)—that he effected service of process according to
the requirements of Rule 4(e).
This case is more than one year old. Plaintiff still has not effected
service of process consistent with Rule 4(e), even though Plaintiff must
serve only one Defendant. A plaintiff's pro se status does not entitle him
to ignore the requirement of Rule 4, including the requirement that he
effect service timely. Kersh v. Derozier, 851 F.2d 1509, 1512 (5th Cir.
1988); Lowe v. Hart, 157 F.R.D. 550, 553 (M.D. Fla. 1994).
Because 	Plaintiff 	has 	not 	served 	Defendant 	within 	the 	time
required under Rule 4(m)—even though the undersigned extended the
deadline 	for 	Plaintiff 	effect 	service—and 	because 	Plaintiff 	has 	not
established “good cause” under Rule 4(m) for extending the time for
service yet again (nor do any other facts or circumstances warrant an
extension of time), the District Court should dismiss this civil action
without prejudice.
Case 5:24-cv-00274-MW-MJF Document 25 Filed 02/09/26 Page 7 of 8

Page 8 of 8
C ONCLUSION
For 	the 	reasons 	set 	forth 	above, 	the 	undersigned 	respectfully
RECOMMENDS that the District Court:
1. 	DISMISS this civil action without prejudice; and
2. 	close the case file.
At Panama City, Florida, this 9th day of February 2026.
/s/ Michael J. Frank
Michael J. Frank
United States Magistrate Judge
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
The District Court referred this case to a magistrate
judge to make recommendations regarding dispositive
matters. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), (C); Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b). 	Objections 	to 	these 	proposed 	findings 	and
recommendations must be filed within fourteen days of
the 	date 	of 	the 	report 	and 	recommendation. 	Any
different deadline that may appear on the electronic
docket is for the court’s internal use only. A party must
serve a copy of any objections on all other parties. A
party 	who 	fails 	to 	object 	to 	this 	report 	and
recommendation 	waives 	the 	right 	to 	challenge 	on
appeal the District Court’s order based on unobjected-
to factual and legal conclusions. See 11th Cir. R. 3-1; 28
U.S.C. § 636.
Case 5:24-cv-00274-MW-MJF Document 25 Filed 02/09/26 Page 8 of 8