McQueen v. United States Drug Enforcement Administration

PEARSON, J.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
DEON MCQUEEN, 	) 	CASE NO. 4:25-CV-00524
)
Plaintiff, 	)
) 	JUDGE BENITA Y. PEARSON
v. 	)
)
DRUG ENFORCEMENT 	) 	MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
ADMINISTRATION, 	) 	AND ORDER
) 	[Resolving ECF No. 27]
Defendant. 	)
The Court considers Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(5). See ECF No. 27. Having reviewed the relevant filings and
applicable law, the motion is granted for the reasons herein.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Deon McQueen started working at Defendant Drug Enforcement Administration
in 2021. See ECF No. 27–1 at PageID #: 161. He was terminated after nine months of
probationary employment. See ECF No. 27–1 at PageID #: 161. In response, he sued Defendant
in federal court alleging racial discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment under
federal and state laws. See ECF No. 1; 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 2000e–3(a), 2000e et seq.; Ohio. Rev.
C. §§ 4112.02(I), 4112.02(A). Defendant declined to waive service of process. ECF No. 27–1 at
PageID #: 162. Plaintiff incorrectly told the Court that he completed service via priority mail.
See ECF Nos. 8, 9, 10. Defendant filed a notice of insufficient service in response. See ECF No.
12. The Court twice ordered Plaintiff to show cause for insufficient service under Fed. R. Civ. P.
4(m). See ECF Nos. 18, 24. Plaintiff incorrectly notified the Court––now for the second time––
Case: 4:25-cv-00524-BYP Doc #: 30 Filed: 11/21/25 1 of 3. PageID #: <pageID>

(4:25-CV-00524)
2
that he completed service. See ECF No. 25. To date, Plaintiff has not served the United States
Attorney General or Defendant as required by Fed. R. Civ. 4(i)(1)(B) and (C). Defendant now
moves to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction due to insufficient service. See ECF No. 27.
Plaintiff did not respond in opposition; instead, he filed an amended complaint without leave of
Court. See ECF No. 29.
II. DISCUSSION
Without service, a court has no personal jurisdiction. See King v. Taylor, 694 F.3d 650,
655 (6th Cir. 2012). Without personal jurisdiction, a court has no power of adjudication. See
Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 584 (1999). When suing a federal agency, a
plaintiff must: (1) deliver a copy of the summons and complaint to the United States attorney (or
their designee) for the district where the action is brought, or send a copy of each by registered or
certified mail to the civil-process clerk at the United States attorney’s office; (2) send a copy of
the summons and complaint by registered or certified mail to the Attorney General of the United
States; and, if the action challenges an order of a nonparty agency or officer of the United States,
(3) send a copy of the summons and complaint by registered or certified mail to that agency or
officer. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(i)(1) et seq. 	Mere awareness of a federal lawsuit is not an
adequate substitute for proper service. See Engler v. Arnold, No. 4:14-CV-2442, 2015 WL
4213642 *2 (N.D. Ohio July 10, 2015). In response to a proper motion alleging insufficient
service, a court may dismiss a complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(5). See Boulger v. Woods,
917 F.3d 471 (6th Cir. 2019).
Granting dismissal for insufficient service is “mandatory, not discretionary” in this case.
See Nicholson v. N–Viro Int'l Corp., No. 3:06CV01669, 2007 WL 2994452, at *4 (N.D. Ohio
Oct.12, 2007) (quoting Moncrief v. Stone, 961 F.2d 595, 597 (6th Cir. 1992) (cleaned up).
Case: 4:25-cv-00524-BYP Doc #: 30 Filed: 11/21/25 2 of 3. PageID #: <pageID>

(4:25-CV-00524)
3
Plaintiff has properly served neither Defendant nor the Attorney General as required by Fed. R.
Civ. P. 4(i)(1) et seq. His “notices regarding service” contain no verifiable evidence of
transmission or delivery via certified or registered mail as required. See ECF No. 25. Despite
multiple orders from the Court, Plaintiff has failed to show cause or complete service in the 250
days since initiating this action, thereby failing to establish the Court’s personal jurisdiction over
Defendant. See ECF Nos. 8, 12, 18, 24, 25, 26. Consequently, dismissal is warranted.
III. CONCLUSION
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 27) is granted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)((2)
and (5) for lack of personal jurisdiction due to deficient service of process. Plaintiff’s Complaint
is hereby dismissed without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
November 21, 2025 	/s/ Benita Y. Pearson
Date 	Benita Y. Pearson
United States District Judge
Case: 4:25-cv-00524-BYP Doc #: 30 Filed: 11/21/25 3 of 3. PageID #: <pageID>