Upchurch v. Dhanani et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
Kenneth Lamont Upchurch,
Plaintiff,
v.
Shoukat Dhanani, et al.,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Action H-24-3367
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO SERVE DEFENDANTS
This initial conference in this case has been referred to the
undersigned magistrate judge. ECF No. 4. The court recommends
that this case be DISMISSED without PREJUDICE for failure
to serve the Defendants.
Plaintiff Kenneth Lamont Upchurch filed his complaint on
September 9, 2024. ECF No. 1. On May 28, 2026, the court held a
hearing and ordered Plaintiff to serve the Defendants by June 19,
2026. ECF No. 11. The court warned in its order that failure to
comply 	“will 	result 	in 	a 	recommendation 	that 	this 	case 	be
dismissed without prejudice for failure to serve the defendants.”
Id.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (Rule) 4,
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). The deadline to serve has passed. There
is no filing or other information on the docket indicating that
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
June 26, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:24-cv-03367 Document 12 Filed 06/26/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 2

2
Plaintiff attempted to serve Defendants. There is no filing or other
information on the docket showing good cause for the failure. The
court 	therefore 	recommends 	that 	the 	case 	be 	DISMISSED
without PREJUDICE for failure to serve the defendants. The
conference set for July 9, 2026, is CANCELED.
The 	parties 	have 	fourteen 	days 	from 	service 	of 	this
Memorandum 	and 	Recommendation 	to file 	written 	objections.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. Failure to timely file
objections will preclude appellate review of factual findings or legal
conclusions, except for plain error. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S.
140, 147–49 (1985); Rodriguez v. Bowen, 857 F.2d 275, 276–77 (5th
Cir. 1988).
Signed at Houston, Texas, on June 26, 2026.
______________________________________
Peter Bray
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 4:24-cv-03367 Document 12 Filed 06/26/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2