Hoskins Jr v. Santander Bank et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
HLEVICTOR A. HOSKINS JR.,
Plaintiff,
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
v. 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:25-cv-1728
SANTANDER BANK, N.A., et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
Pro se Plaintiff filed this case against Defendants on April 13, 2025.
Plaintiff was required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) to serve
Defendants within ninety days. The deadline for serving Defendants was July
14, 2025. 	See FED . R. C IV . P. 4(m). 	However, proof of timely service of
Defendants has not been filed with the Court.
On July 18, 2025, the Court issued an Order of Non-Compliance and
Resetting Rule 16 Conference. 	(ECF No. 9). 	In the Order, the Court warned
Plaintiff that his case may be dismissed if proof of service was not filed within
sixty (60) days of the Court’s Order. 	(Id.). 	On September 8, the Court reset
the case for an initial scheduling conference on October 8, 2025. (ECF No. 10).
On 	October 	7, 	the 	Court 	issued 	another 	Order 	of 	Non-Compliance 	and
Resetting Rule 16 Conference. (ECF No. 12). In the October 7 Order, the Court
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
November 21, 2025
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-01728 Document 13 Filed on 11/21/25 in TXSD Page 1 of 4

2
warned Plaintiff that failure to comply could result in a recommendation that
this case be dismissed under Rule 41(b) and/or failure to serve under Rule 4.
(Id. at 2). 	Despite these orders and multiple extensions of time to serve
Defendants, the deadline to do so has now passed and proof of timely service
of Defendants has not been filed with the Court.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 41(b) 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)). 	Further, under Rule 4, if a plaintiff does not properly serve a
defendant within ninety 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.” 	F ED. R. C IV . P. 4(m); see Thrasher v. City of Amarillo, 709
F.3d 509, 511 (5th Cir. 2013).
Here, the Court should dismiss this action under Rules 41(b) and 4(m).
Pro se plaintiffs are entitled to notice before a district court dismisses an action
sua sponte for failure to timely serve a defendant under Rule 4(m). 	Lyons v.
Starbucks Coffee Co., No. 3:19-cv-2457, 2020 WL 5732638, at *5 (N.D. Tex.
Aug. 24, 2020), report and recommendation adopted, No. 3:19-cv-2457, 2020
Case 4:25-cv-01728 Document 13 Filed on 11/21/25 in TXSD Page 2 of 4

3
WL 5710245 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 24, 2020). Plaintiff received the required notice
by warning Plaintiff that failure to properly serve Defendants could result in
dismissal of his lawsuit under Rule 4(m). 	(See ECF Nos. 	9, 12). 	Because
Plaintiff has failed to properly serve Defendants and more than ninety days
have elapsed since he filed his Complaint, the Court should dismiss this action.
See Gaivehchi v. Bierman, No. 3:19-cv-980, 2019 WL 6120137, at *1 (N.D. Tex.
Oct. 1, 2019), report and recommendation adopted, No. 3:19-cv-980, 2019 WL
6118563 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 15, 2019).
Dismissal is also warranted under Rule 41(b). 	By failing to properly
serve Defendants and comply with the Court’s order regarding service of
process, Plaintiff has prevented this action from proceeding. The Court should
therefore exercise its inherent power to prevent undue delays in the disposition
of pending cases and sua sponte dismiss this action without prejudice. See Coe
v. United States, No. 3:23-cv-1627, 2023 WL 9231455, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 21,
2023), report and recommendation adopted, No. 3:23-cv-1627, 2024 WL 150441
(N.D. Tex. Jan. 12, 2024).
Due to Plaintiff’s failure to comply with a Court order, prosecute his case,
and properly serve Defendants, the Court recommends DISMISSAL of this
case without prejudice.
Case 4:25-cv-01728 Document 13 Filed on 11/21/25 in TXSD Page 3 of 4

4
The Clerk shall send copies of this Memorandum and Recommendation
to the respective parties who have fourteen days from the receipt thereof to file
written objections thereto pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)
and General Order 2002-13. Failure to file written objections within the time
period mentioned shall bar an aggrieved party from attacking the factual
findings and legal conclusions on appeal.
SIGNED in Houston, Texas on November 21, 2025.
______________________________
Richard W. Bennett
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 4:25-cv-01728 Document 13 Filed on 11/21/25 in TXSD Page 4 of 4