Singletary et al v. Brookstone Law Coalition et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
Michael Wayne Singletary,
Plaintiff,
v.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL NO. 4:25-CV-3760
Brookstone Law Coalition, et al.,
Defendants.
JUDGE PALERMO’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
In this pro se action, Plaintiff Michael Singletary alleges Defendants tricked
him into paying significant fees to pursue a bogus mortgage-debt-elimination
process. ECF No. 10.1 Because Plaintiff failed to properly serve Defendants within
ninety days of filing his complaint, this case should be dismissed without prejudice.2
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) provides that “[i]f a defendant is not
served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on motion or on its
1 The district judge referred all pretrial proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 636. ECF No. 4.
2 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) provides that if “the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply
with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action or any claim against
it.” Castillo v. Becka, No. 2:21-CV-00162, 2022 WL 5264612, at *2 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 31, 2022),
adopted, No. 2:21-CV-00162, 2022 WL 5264650 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 6, 2022) (quoting FED. R. C IV.
P. 41(b)). Pursuant to this rule, the Court “has the inherent authority to dismiss an action sua sponte
for failure to prosecute, with or without notice to the parties,” which flows from the Court’s
“inherent power to control its docket and prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases.”
Id. (first quoting Clofer v. Perego, 106 F.3d 678, 679 (5th Cir. 1997) (per curiam); and then quoting
Boudwin v. Graystone Ins. Co., Ltd., 756 F.2d 399, 401 (5th Cir. 1985)).
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
July 08, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-03760 Document 25 Filed 07/08/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 4

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). While Plaintiff may proceed pro se, he must still comply with the applicable
rules of procedure. See Silva v. Melendez, No. 7:21-CV-00001, 2021 WL 12241557,
at *1 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 8, 2021). “The right of self-representation does not exempt a
party from compliance with relevant rules of procedure and substantive law.” Id.
(quoting Birl v. Estelle, 660 F.2d 592, 593 (5th Cir. 1981)). Pursuant to Rule 4(c),
Plaintiff is responsible for serving the summons and complaint on Defendant. Id.;
F ED. R. CIV. P. 4(c).
Plaintiff filed this case on August 11, 2025. ECF No. 1. The Court struck his
original complaint on September 22, 2025—because he improperly sought to
represent other plaintiffs while proceeding pro se—and ordered him to file an
amended complaint. Order, ECF No. 6. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on
September 29, 2025. ECF No. 10.
Before he filed his amended complaint, Plaintiff filed a motion for an entry of
default. 	ECF No. 9. The Court denied the motion because there was no operative
complaint on file at that time. Order, ECF No. 12. The Court also cautioned Plaintiff
that failure “to comply with the Court’s order or the rules regarding service of
process” may result in dismissal of the case. Id.
Despite this warning, the record reflects that Plaintiff has not complied with
Case 4:25-cv-03760 Document 25 Filed 07/08/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 4

the rules regarding service of process. His certificates of service indicate that he
“served a true and correct copy of the Amended Complaint, Summons, and attached
Exhibits upon” the Defendants “by depositing same in the United States Mail,
certified mail with return receipt requested.” ECF No. 11 at 1; ECF No. 13 at 1. But
this is insufficient.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permit service on an individual by
“following state law for serving a summons in an action brought in courts of general
jurisdiction in the state where the district court is located or where service is made.”
FED. R. CIV. P. 4(e)(1). The Rules permit service on a corporation, partnership, or
other unincorporated association “following state law for serving a summons in an
action brought in courts of general jurisdiction in the state where the district court is
located or where service is made.” F ED. R. CIV. P. 4(h)(1)(A) (noting that service of
a corporation, partnership, or other unincorporated association may be done “in the
manner prescribed by Rule 4(e)(1) for serving an individual”). In Texas, one of the
service options is “mailing to the defendant by registered or certified mail, return
receipt requested, a copy of the citation and of the petition.” T EX. R. CIV.
P. 106(a)(2). However, “[u]nder both Rule 4 and Texas law, a plaintiff cannot send
the summons and complaint themselves, even via certified mail.” Gunter v. XTO
Energy, No. CV H-25-6356, 2026 WL 1138367, at *2 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 21, 2026);
see also Sharma v. City of Dall., No. 3:24-CV-1310-D-BN, 2026 WL 183777, at *3
Case 4:25-cv-03760 Document 25 Filed 07/08/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 4

(N.D. Tex. Jan. 23, 2026) (collecting cases). Here, Plaintiff states that he mailed the
documents himself. ECF No. 11 at 1; ECF No. 13 at 1. Thus, his attempted service
was defective. Gunter, 2026 WL 1138367, at *2.
The 	Court 	previously 	warned 	Plaintiff 	that 	failure 	to 	properly 	serve
Defendants may result in dismissal. Order, ECF No. 12. He still has not properly
served Defendants. Dismissal is therefore appropriate under Rule 4(m).
Accordingly, 	the 	Court 	RECOMENDS 	that 	Plaintiff’s 	claims 	be
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
The 	Parties 	have 	fourteen 	days 	from 	service 	of 	this 	Report 	and
Recommendation to file written objections. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); F ED. R.
C IV . P. 72(b). Failure to file timely objections will preclude review of factual
findings or legal conclusions, except for plain error. Quinn v. Guerrero, 863 F.3d
353, 358 (5th Cir. 2017).
Signed at Houston, Texas, on July 7, 2026.
______________________________
Dena Hanovice Palermo
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 4:25-cv-03760 Document 25 Filed 07/08/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 4