ROSWOLD v. CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS et al

Page 1 of 8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PANAMA CITY DIVISION
TYLER ROSWOLD,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 5:24-cv-137-AW/MJF
CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF
LATTER-DAY SAINTS and FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND
FAMILIES,
Defendants.
/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Because Plaintiff failed to comply with two court orders and failed
to timely serve the Defendants, the District Court should dismiss this
action pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
BACKGROUND
A. 	The District Court’s First Order Regarding Service
On June 28, 2024, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, commenced this civil
action. Doc. 1. On May 1, 2025, counsel filed a notice of appearance on
behalf of Plaintiff. Doc. 21. On July 10, 2025, the District Court ordered
Plaintiff to: (1) file a revised third amended complaint by July 24, 2025,
Case 5:24-cv-00137-AW-MJF Document 46 Filed 05/04/26 Page 1 of 8

Page 2 of 8
(2) promptly obtain summonses for Defendants; (3) arrange service on
Defendants; and (4) file proof of service or a report explaining why service
had not been perfected. Doc. 26 at 1–2. The District Court provided
Plaintiff with forty-five days to file the proof of service or report. In other
words, counsel was required to serve Defendants and provide proof of
service by August 25, 2025.
B. 	The 	District 	Court’s 	First 	Order 	to 	Show 	Cause 	and
Plaintiff’s Response
On 	September 	3, 	2025, 	because 	Plaintiff 	still 	had 	not 	served
Defendants, the District Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why this
case should not be dismissed. Doc. 32.
On 	September 	10, 	2025, 	counsel 	moved 	to 	withdraw 	from
representation and also requested an extension of the service deadline.
Counsel explained that he had not served defendants because of “delays
in 	coordinating 	with 	process 	servers 	and 	obtaining 	the 	necessary
information to complete service” that were “outside counsel’s reasonable
control.” Doc. 33.
On September 17, 2025, the District Court granted counsel’s motion
to withdraw and denied without prejudice the request for an extension of
the service deadline. Doc. 34. The District Court stayed the proceedings
Case 5:24-cv-00137-AW-MJF Document 46 Filed 05/04/26 Page 2 of 8

Page 3 of 8
for thirty days to allow Plaintiff to obtain substitute counsel or file a
notice of intent to proceed pro se. Id.
C. 	The Undersigned’s Order Extending the Service Deadline
On September 29, 2025, Plaintiff filed a notice of intent to proceed
pro se 	and a motion to extend time for service. Docs. 35 & 26. On
November 25, 2025, the undersigned granted Plaintiff an extension of
time to serve Defendant. The undersigned imposed a compliance deadline
of February 9, 2026. Additionally, the undersigned ordered Plaintiff to
fill out and return certain forms necessary for the Marshals Service to
effect service on his behalf. Doc. 41. The undersigned provided Plaintiff
until December 17, 2025, to submit those forms.
Plaintiff has not complied with that order.
D. 	The Undersigned’s Order to Show Cause
On February 25, 2026, the undersigned ordered Plaintiff to show
cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to comply with
the undersigned’s order of November 25, 2025. Doc. 45. The undersigned
imposed a compliance deadline March 11, 2026. Id. Plaintiff has not
complied with that order.
Case 5:24-cv-00137-AW-MJF Document 46 Filed 05/04/26 Page 3 of 8

Page 4 of 8
D ISCUSSION
A. 	Plaintiff Failed to Comply with Two Court Orders
“Federal courts possess an inherent power to dismiss a complaint
for failure to comply with a court order.” Foudy v. Indian River Cnty.
Sheriff’s Off., 845 F.3d 1117, 1126 (11th Cir. 2017) (citations omitted);
N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 41.1 (authorizing the court to dismiss an action, or any
claim within it, “[i]f a party fails to comply with an applicable rule or a
court order”). A district court also may dismiss a civil action sua sponte
for failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash R.R.
Co., 370 U.S. 626, 632 (1962). Plaintiff has failed to comply with two court
orders and failed to submit documents required for service. Plaintiff has
offered no excuse for his failures and, consequently, has not shown good
cause. Accordingly, dismissal of this civil action without prejudice is
appropriate.
B. 	Plaintiff Failed to Serve Defendants
There is a second reason for the District Court to dismiss this
action: Plaintiff has failed to effect service of Defendants.
A plaintiff “is responsible for having the summons and complaint
served on the defendant” in accordance with Rule 4 of the Federal Rules
Case 5:24-cv-00137-AW-MJF Document 46 Filed 05/04/26 Page 4 of 8

Page 5 of 8
of Civil Procedure. Fitzpatrick v. Bank of New York Mellon, 580 F. App’x
690, 693 (11th Cir. 2014). Thus, a plaintiff must ensure that service is
completed within the limits set forth by Rule 4(m). Lepone-Dempsey v.
Carroll Cnty. Com’rs, 476 F.3d 1277, 1280–81 (11th Cir. 2007). With
respect to timeliness, Rule 4(m) states:
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.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).
Plaintiff commenced this civil action nearly two years ago. To date,
Plaintiff has not served Defendants. Plaintiff has not established good
cause for an automatic extension, and there is no basis for granting a
permissive extension of the deadline.
1. 	Plaintiff Fails to Show Good Cause
If a plaintiff shows good cause for his failure to timely serve a
defendant, the court must extend the deadline. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Good
cause to extend the deadline for service exists “only when some outside
factor[,] such as reliance on faulty advice, rather than inadvertence or
negligence prevented service.” Lepone-Dempsey, 476 F.3d at 1281 (citing
Case 5:24-cv-00137-AW-MJF Document 46 Filed 05/04/26 Page 5 of 8

Page 6 of 8
Prisco 	v. 	Frank, 	929 	F.2d 	603, 	604 	(11th 	Cir. 	1991) 	(per 	curiam),
superseded in part by rule as stated in Horenkamp v. Vanwinkle and Co.,
Inc., 402 F.3d 1129, 1132 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005)). In determining whether
good cause exists, “[c]ourts will look to ‘factors outside a plaintiff’s
control, such as sudden illness, natural catastrophe or evasion of service
of process,’ to determine whether [the plaintiff] satisfied the ‘good cause’
requirement.” Gambino v. Village of Oakbrook, 164 F.R.D. 271, 274 (M.D.
Fla. 1995) (citations omitted).
Here, the undersigned afforded Plaintiff an opportunity to show
cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to return the
service forms and failure to effect service timely. Doc. 45. Plaintiff has
not responded to that order. Consequently, Plaintiff has failed to show
good cause for an extension of the deadline to effect service.
2. 	A 	Permissive 	Extension 	of 	the 	Deadline 	Is 	Not
Warranted
Even in the “absence of good cause,” a “district court has the
discretion to extend the time for service of process.” Lepone-Dempsey, 476
F.3d 	at 	1281. 	In 	determining 	whether 	a 	permissive 	extension 	is
warranted, courts look at the factors set forth in the advisory committee
notes to Rule 4. Horenkamp, 402 F.3d at 1132–33. For example, “relief
Case 5:24-cv-00137-AW-MJF Document 46 Filed 05/04/26 Page 6 of 8

Page 7 of 8
may be justified . . . if the applicable statute of limitations would bar the
refiled action, or if the defendant is evading service or conceals a defect
in attempted service.” Id. at 1132 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) advisory
committee note to 1993 amendments).
Here, a permissive extension of time to serve Defendants is not
warranted. There is no evidence that Defendants attempted to evade
service or concealed a defect in service. Although Plaintiff’s claim may be
barred by the applicable statute of limitations, this “does not require that
the district court extend time for service of process under Rule 4(m).”
Lepone-Dempsey, 476 F.3d at 1282. This is especially true considering
that the case almost two years old.
“The glacial pace of much litigation breeds frustration with the
federal courts and, ultimately, disrespect for the law.” Roadway Express,
Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 757 n.4 (1980). Delay causes “stale evidence
and the fading of material facts in the minds of potential witnesses.”
Ryland v. Shapiro, 708 F.2d 967, 975 (5th Cir. 1983). “[P]ossibilities for
error multiply rapidly as time elapses between the original fact and its
judicial determination.” Rheuark v. Shaw, 628 F.2d 297, 303–04 n.10 (5th
Cir. 1980). Accordingly, federal courts have a duty to ensure that cases
Case 5:24-cv-00137-AW-MJF Document 46 Filed 05/04/26 Page 7 of 8

Page 8 of 8
are progressing toward a resolution. The District Court’s need to keep
cases moving toward a resolution outweighs any interest that Plaintiff
may have in this case remaining pending and inactive indefinitely. The
District Court, therefore, should dismiss this action without prejudice
pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
CONCLUSION
Because Plaintiff failed to comply with two court orders and has
failed 	to 	serve 	Defendants, 	the 	undersigned 	respectfully
RECOMMENDS that the District Court:
1. 	DISMISS this action without prejudice.
2. 	DIRECT the clerk of the court to close the case file.
At Pensacola, Florida, this 4th day of May 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 this report and recommendation must be filed within
fourteen days. 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. Rule 3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636.
Case 5:24-cv-00137-AW-MJF Document 46 Filed 05/04/26 Page 8 of 8