Stephenson v. Bon Secours Mercy Health et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
SHARISSE STEPHENSON, 	§
§
Plaintiff, 	§
§
v. 	§ 	Civil Action No. 3:25-cv-01755-S-BT
§
BON SECOURS MERCY HEALTH 	§
ET AL., 	§
§
Defendants. 	§
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Dr. Sharisse Stephenson, proceeding pro se, initiated this civil
action against Bon Secours Mercy Health, Donna Lohr, Vishwas Patel, Anand
Kapur, and Michelle Pyka on July 7, 2025. See Compl. (ECF No. 3). To date, Dr.
Stephenson has failed to effect proper service in compliance with Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 4. Therefore, the District Judge should DISMISS this case without
prejudice under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 4(m) and 41(b).
Background
In this employment dispute, Dr. Stephenson alleges that after requesting
accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), her employer
Bon Secours Mercy Health “placed [her] on leave, denied [her] therapy access, and
ultimately denied [her] short-term disability benefits.” Compl. at 3, ¶ 14 (ECF No.
3). She also alleges that Defendants retaliated against her for reporting safety
concerns in Bon Secours Mercy Health’s neurology clinic and infringed upon her
Case 3:25-cv-01755-S-BT Document 6 Filed 12/23/25 Page 1 of 4 PageID <pageID>

2
First Amendment rights. Id. ¶¶ 13, 16. She brings claims under the ADA, First
Amendment, § 1983, and equal protection. Id. at 4.
Legal Standard and Analysis
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4, “[t]he plaintiff is responsible for
having the summons and complaint served within the time allowed by Rule 4(m)
and must furnish the necessary copies to the person who makes service.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 4(c)(1). After effecting service, the plaintiff must file proof of service with
the Court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(l). If the plaintiff fails to serve a defendant “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,”
unless the plaintiff shows both (1) good cause for her failure to timely and properly
effect service and (2) good cause for the Court to extend the time for service for an
appropriate period. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m); Lewis v. Sec’y of Pub. Safety & Corr., 870
F.3d 365, 369 (5th Cir. 2017) (“Rule 4(m) requires dismissal if a defendant is not
served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, unless the plaintiff shows good
cause for the failure.”).
Additionally, Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a
court to dismiss an action sua sponte for failure to prosecute or for failure to
comply with the federal rules or any court order. Griggs v. S.G.E. Mgmt., L.L.C.,
905 F.3d 835, 844 (5th Cir. 2018) (citing McCullough v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 1126,
1127 (5th Cir. 1988) (per curiam)); accord Nottingham v. Warden, Bill Clements
Unit, 837 F.3d 438, 440–42 (5th Cir. 2016) (failure to comply with court order);
Case 3:25-cv-01755-S-BT Document 6 Filed 12/23/25 Page 2 of 4 PageID <pageID>

3
Rosin v. Thaler, 450 F. App’x 383, 383–84 (5th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (failure to
prosecute). “This authority [under Rule 41(b)] flows from the court’s inherent
power to control its docket and prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending
cases.” Boudwin v. Graystone Ins., 756 F.2d 399, 401 (5th Cir. 1985) (citing Link
v. Wabash, R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962)). The Court’s authority under Rule 41(b)
is not diluted by a party proceeding pro se, as “[t]he right to self-representation
does not exempt a party from compliance with relevant rules of procedural and
substantive law.” Wright v. LBA Hosp., 754 F. App’x 298, 300 (5th Cir. 2019) (per
curiam) (quoting Hulsey v. Texas, 929 F.2d 168, 171 (5th Cir. 1991)).
Here, Dr. Stephenson initiated this civil action more than 90 days ago. And
by paying the filing fee, Dr. Stephenson undertook the obligation to properly serve
each Defendant with a summons and the complaint in accordance with Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 4. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c), (h); Leeper v. Carte Blanche, 2024
WL 1218550, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 20, 2024) (Horan, J.). However, she has not
filed proof of service on any Defendant or offered good cause for this failure. Thus,
Dr. Stephenson has failed to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and
has failed to prosecute this lawsuit, so it should be dismissed under Rules 4(m) and
41(b).
Recommendation
The District Judge should DISMISS Dr. Stephenson’s case without prejudice
under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 4(m) and 41(b) for failure to timely
effectuate service and failure to prosecute. If Dr. Stephenson files a valid return of
Case 3:25-cv-01755-S-BT Document 6 Filed 12/23/25 Page 3 of 4 PageID <pageID>

4
service as to Defendants or shows good cause in writing before the deadline for
objecting to the findings, conclusions, and recommendation expires (explained in
more detail below), the Magistrate Judge will withdraw the recommendation to
dismiss.1
SO RECOMMENDED.
December 23, 2025.
____________________________
REBECCA RUTHERFORD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT
A copy of this report and recommendation shall be served on all parties in
the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of this report and
recommendation must file specific written objections within 14 days after being
served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED . R. CIV . P. 72(b). To be specific,
an objection must identify the specific finding or recommendation to which
objection is made, state the basis for the objection, and specify the place in the
magistrate judge’s report and recommendation where the disputed determination
is found. An objection that merely incorporates by reference or refers to the
briefing before the magistrate judge is not specific. Failure to file specific written
objections will bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and legal
conclusions of the magistrate judge that are accepted or adopted by the district
court, except upon grounds of plain error. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto.
Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996).
1 	However, the Court notes that the Northern District of Texas is not the
appropriate venue for Dr. Stephenson’s suit. Rather, Dr. Stephenson should have
brought her claims in the Eastern District of Virgina. See Order, Stephenson v. Bon
Secours Med. Grp. Hampton Rds. Specialty Care LLC, No. 3:25-CV-2668-S-BK,
(N.D. Tex. Oct. 3, 2025), ECF No. 4 (Toliver, J.) (sua sponte transferring Dr.
Stephenson’s ADA case to the Eastern District of Virgina).
Case 3:25-cv-01755-S-BT Document 6 Filed 12/23/25 Page 4 of 4 PageID <pageID>