Jeude v. Ste. Genevieve County Memorial Hospital et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
TODD JEUDE,
Plaintiff,
v.
STE. GENEVIEVE COUNTY MEMORIAL
HOSPITAL et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 1:24-cv-00100-ACL
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
On September 23, 2025, the Court granted Defendant Ste. Genevieve County Memorial
Hospital’s motions to dismiss and directed Plaintiff Todd Jeude to provide, within thirty days, a
valid service address for Defendant Dr. Teena Sharrock. (ECF No. 52). The Court advised Jeude
that failure to do so would result in dismissal of the claims against Dr. Sharrock without prejudice
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). Id. at 11.
The United States Marshals Service has attempted service on Dr. Sharrock on more than
one occasion, most recently on June 16, 2025, without success. (ECF No. 49). Counsel for the
Hospital previously provided Dr. Sharrock’s last-known address (ECF No. 46), which was a P.O.
Box and therefore insufficient for personal service (ECF No. 49). Despite the Court’s prior order,
Jeude has not provided an alternative address or other identifying information that would enable
the Marshals to complete service. Therefore, dismissal under Rule 4(m) is appropriate. See Lee v.
Armontrout, 991 F.2d 487, 489 (8th Cir. 1993) (affirming dismissal where a pro se inmate failed
to provide a valid service address). Dismissal is also warranted under Rule 41(b) for failure to
comply with the Court’s prior order.
Case: 1:24-cv-00100-ACL Doc. #: 61 Filed: 11/07/25 Page: 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

Jeude also filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s September 23 order. (ECF No.
57). Because the Court is dismissing this action under Rule 4(m), Jeude’s motion is moot. But
even if the Court were to reach the merits of the motion, Jeude identifies no manifest error of law
or fact, no newly discovered evidence, and no other grounds warranting relief under Rules 59(e)
or 60(b). Instead, Jeude argues that the Court’s partial dismissal is inconsistent with its handling
of his prior case, Jeude v. Ste. Genevieve Mem’l Hosp., No. 1:22-cv-151-SNLJ (E.D. Mo. May 5,
2023). Even if the two cases were procedurally identical, the Court must evaluate each action
independently. Jeude’s prior case has no preclusive or precedential effect in this separate action.
See Little Earth of the United Tribes, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Hous. & Urb. Dev., 807 F.2d 1433, 1441
(8th Cir. 1986).
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Jeude’s claims against Defendant Dr. Teena Sharrock
are DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to Rules 4(m) and 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Jeude’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 57) is
DENIED as moot.
Because all defendants have been dismissed, an Order of Dismissal accompanies this
Memorandum and Order.
Dated this 7 th day of November 2025.
_______________________________________
STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case: 1:24-cv-00100-ACL Doc. #: 61 Filed: 11/07/25 Page: 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>