Solis v. Doe

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
Jovan Saul Solis, 	§
Plaintiff, 	§
§
v. 	§ 	Civil Action H-25-3104
§
John Doe, 	§
Defendant. 	§
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
This case has been referred to the undersigned magistrate
judge 	to 	conduct 	the 	conference 	under 	Federal 	Rule 	of 	Civil
Procedure 16. The court sua sponte recommends this case be
DISMISSED for failure to serve the defendant.
Plaintiff Jovan Saul Solis filed his complaint on June 27,
2025. ECF No. 1. An initial conference was held on October 16,
2025, and a written order was issued after the completion of the
conference. 	The order gave Plaintiff until November 17, 2025, to
serve the defendant and reset the initial conference to December
5, 2025, advising the Plaintiff “Failure to serve the defendant will
result 	in 	dismissal 	of 	this 	case 	under 	Federal 	Rule 	of 	Civil
Procedure 4(m).” See ECF No. 11. Plaintiff failed to complete
service and did not appear at the December 5 conference.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m),
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 court ordered that service be made by
November 17, 2025. ECF No. 11. Plaintiff has not complied. Thus,
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
December 05, 2025
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-03104 Document 14 Filed 12/05/25 in TXSD Page 1 of 2

2
pursuant to Rule 4(m), the court recommends that the case be
DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to serve the defendant.
Signed at Houston, Texas, on December 5, 2025.
_____________________________
Peter Bray
United States Magistrate Judge
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).
Case 4:25-cv-03104 Document 14 Filed 12/05/25 in TXSD Page 2 of 2