Dizon v. Philippine Airlines Company

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
WICHITA FALLS DIVISION
ALFRED C. DIZON, 	§
§
Plaintiff, 	§
§
v. 	§ 	Civil Action No. 7:25-cv-00033-O-BP
§
PHILIPPINE AIRLINES COMPANY, 	§
§
Defendant. 	§
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
By Order dated April 15, 2025, because Plaintiff Alfred Dizon had paid the filing fee, the
Court directed him to ensure that he effectively served Defendant Philippine Airlines Company
(“PAL”) within 90 days after the filing of the complaint. ECF No. 4. Dizon filed several “Proof[s]
of Service” on April 25, August 5, and October 20, 2025. (ECF Nos. 5, 9, 12). On November 21,
2025, the Court found that Dizon had not properly served PAL and ordered him to do so by
December 20, 2025. ECF No. 16. However, as of the date of this recommendation, Dizon has not
done so.
Rule 4 provides that “[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. Id. 4(l)(1). If the plaintiff does not 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. Id. 4(m); Lewis v. Sec'y of Pub. Safety &
Case 7:25-cv-00033-O-BP Document 17 Filed 01/07/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID <pageID>

2
Corr., 870 F.3d 365, 369 (5th Cir. 2017). “A pro se plaintiff is entitled to notice before a district
court dismisses an action, sua sponte, for failure to timely serve the defendants under Rule 4(m).”
Lindsey v. U.S. R.R. Ret. Bd., 101 F.3d 444, 446 (5th Cir. 1996)). But “[a] plaintiff's pro se status
and ignorance of the law do not constitute cause for his failure to effect service in compliance with
the rules.” Kersh v. Derozier, 851 F.2d 1509, 1512 (5th Cir. 1988).
When the Court issued its November 21, 2025 Order, it warned Dizon that “it must dismiss
the action without prejudice if he does not properly serve PAL in accordance with the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. ECF No. 16 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m)).
Dizon has neither served process on PAL in a timely fashion under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 4 nor has he filed an adequate proof of service with the Court. Accordingly, the
undersigned RECOMMENDS that Chief United States District Judge Reed O’Connor DISMISS
without prejudice Dizon’s claims against Philippine Airlines Company under Fed. R. Civ. P.
4(m) for failure to timely serve process.
A copy of these findings, conclusions, and recommendation shall be served on all parties
in the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of these findings, conclusions,
and recommendation must file specific written objections within fourteen days after being served
with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). To be specific, an objection must
identify the particular finding or recommendation to which objection is made, state the basis for
the objection, and specify the place in the magistrate judge’s findings, conclusions, 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
Case 7:25-cv-00033-O-BP Document 17 Filed 01/07/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID <pageID>

3
upon grounds of plain error. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th
Cir. 1996) (en banc), modified by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the
time to file objections to 14 days).
SIGNED on January 7, 2026.
__________________________________
Hal R. Ray, Jr.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 7:25-cv-00033-O-BP Document 17 Filed 01/07/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID <pageID>