Tietjeng v. Internal Revenue Service

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT NASHVILLE
WAL MABOR TIENJENG 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. 3:25-cv-00972
)
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE 	)
TO: 	Honorable Waverly D. Crenshsaw, Jr., United States District Judge
R E P O R T 	A N D 	R E C O M M E N D A T I O N
By Order entered November 19, 2025 (Docket Entry No. 10), the Court referred this pro
se civil case to the Magistrate Judge for pretrial proceedings under 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(A) and
(B), Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Court. For the reasons
set out below, the undersigned respectfully recommends that this action be DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE due to a lack of service of process upon Defendant Internal Revenue
Service.
Wal Mabor Tietjang (“Plaintiff”) is a resident of Nashville, Tennessee. Acting pro se, he
filed this lawsuit against the United States Internal Revenue Service (“Defendant”) on August 27,
2025. See Complaint (Docket Entry No. 1). Although no legal claim is actually asserted in the
complaint, it appears that Plaintiff disputes Defendant’s attempt to collect money from Plaintiff
that Defendant contends is owed for back taxes. Id.
On August 27, 2025, the Clerk issued a summons to Plaintiff for service on Defendant.
See Docket Entry No. 3. 	The docket reflects that the summons was returned unexecuted on
November 13, 2025. See Docket Entry No. 8. Since that time, the Court has twice advised Plaintiff
of his responsibility to ensure that Defendant is served with a summons and a copy of the complaint
Case 3:25-cv-00972 Document 12 Filed 03/06/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>

2
in accordance with Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and that his failure to timely
serve Defendant with process may result in the dismissal of this case. 	See Orders entered
November 19, 2025 (Docket Entry No. 10), and November 21, 2025 (Docket Entry No. 11).
Rule 4(c)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states that “[t]he plaintiff is
responsible for having the summons and complaint served within the time allowed by Rule 4(m).”
Rule 4(m) provides that:
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.
More than ninety (90) days have passed since a summons was issued for Defendant but there is no
indication that Defendant has been served with process in accordance with Rule 4. Because the
time frame permitted under Rule 4(m) for obtaining service of process upon Defendant has lapsed,
the plain language of Rule 4(m) requires that the case be dismissed without prejudice.
Although Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, he must still comply with the basic procedural rules
that are applicable to all litigants, see Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 110 (6th Cir. 1991); Aug. v.
Caruso, 2015 WL 1299888, *6 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 23, 2015) (“pro se parties must follow the same
rules of procedure that govern other litigants”), and, as the party bringing this lawsuit, he
specifically “bears the burden of perfecting service of process and showing that proper service was
made.” Sawyer v. Lexington-Fayette Urb. Cnty. Gov't, 18 F.App'x 285, 287 (6th Cir. 2001). He
has not met this burden, and dismissal of the action is warranted under Rule 4(m). See Walker v.
Donahoe, 528 F.App'x 439, 440-41 (6th Cir. 2013) (affirming the district court's decision to
dismiss case because the plaintiff failed to timely perfect service).
Case 3:25-cv-00972 Document 12 Filed 03/06/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>

3
R E C O M M E N D A T I O N1
For the reasons set out above, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that this action be
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE under Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
ANY OBJECTIONS to this Report and Recommendation must be filed within fourteen
(14) days of service of this Report and Recommendation and must state with particularity the
specific portions of this Report and Recommendation to which objection is made. See Rule
72(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 72.02(a). Failure to file written
objections within the specified time can be deemed a waiver of the right to appeal the District
Court's Order regarding the Report and Recommendation. 	See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140
(1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). Any response to the objections
must be filed within fourteen (14) days after service of objections. See Federal Rule 72(b)(2) and
Local Rule 72.02(b).
Respectfully submitted,
_________________________
BARBARA D. HOLMES
United States Magistrate Judge
1 This Report and Recommendation provides notice to Plaintiff of the Court’s intention to
sua sponte dismiss the action under Rule 4(m) because of the lack of timely service, and the
fourteen (14) day period for filing objections provides him with the opportunity to show good
cause for why dismissal is not warranted.
Case 3:25-cv-00972 Document 12 Filed 03/06/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>