Wakat et al v. Shafer et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
August Wakat, et al., 	§
Plaintiffs, 	§
§
v. 	§ 	Civil Action H-25-3200
§
Trisha Shafer, et al., 	§
Defendants. 	§
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
This case has been referred to the undersigned magistrate
judge to conduct the conference under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 16. The court sua sponte recommends this case be
DISMISSED for failure to serve the defendants.
Plaintiffs August Wakat and Estella Wakat-Aikins filed
their complaint on July 3, 2025. ECF No. 1. An initial conference
was held on October 16, 2025. Plaintiffs failed to appear. A written
order was issued, giving Plaintiffs until November 17, 2025, to
serve the defendants and reset the initial conference to December
5, 2025, advising the Plaintiffs “Failure to serve the defendant will
result in dismissal of this case under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 4(m).” See ECF No. 13. The “Proof of Noticing,”
ECF No. 14, from the clerk’s internal noticing system, shows
that the order was mailed to the Plaintiffs at the addresses
listed on the docket sheet. Plaintiffs failed to complete service and
did not appear at the December 5 conference.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m),
If a defendant is not served 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 or order that
service be made within a specified time. But if the
plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
December 05, 2025
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-03200 Document 15 Filed 12/05/25 in TXSD Page 1 of 2

2
must extend the time for service for an appropriate
period.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). The court ordered that service be made by
November 17, 2025. ECF No. 13. Plaintiffs have not complied.
Thus, pursuant to Rule 4(m), the court recommends that the case
be 	DISMISSED 	without 	prejudice 	for 	failure 	to 	serve 	the
defendants.
Signed at Houston, Texas, on December 5, 2025.
_____________________________
Peter Bray
United States Magistrate Judge
The 	parties 	have 	fourteen 	days 	from 	service 	of 	this
Memorandum and Recommendation to file written objections. 28
U.S.C. 	§ 636(b)(1); 	Fed. 	R. 	Civ. 	P. 	72. 	Failure 	to 	timely 	file
objections will preclude appellate review of factual findings or legal
conclusions, 	except 	for 	plain 	error. 	See 	Thomas 	v. 	Arn,
474 U.S. 140, 147–49 (1985); Rodriguez v. Bowen, 857 F.2d 275,
276–77 (5th Cir. 1988).
Case 4:25-cv-03200 Document 15 Filed 12/05/25 in TXSD Page 2 of 2