Calderone v. Nationwide Fund Recovery

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
Steve Calderone,
Plaintiff,
v.
Nationwide Fund Recovery,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Action H-25-3943
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
The 	court 	recommends 	that 	this 	case 	be 	DISMISSED
without prejudice for failure to serve the Defendant.
Plaintiff Steve Calderone filed his complaint on August 20,
2025. ECF No. 1. On November 19, 2025, the court held a hearing
and ordered that Plaintiff shall serve the Defendant by December
5, 2025. ECF No. 6. The court stated in its order that failure to
comply 	“will 	result 	in 	a 	recommendation 	that 	this 	case 	be
dismissed without prejudice for failure to serve the defendant.” Id.
Plaintiff 	did 	not 	comply. 	There 	is 	no 	filing 	or 	other
information on the docket indicating that Plaintiff attempted to
serve Defendant. There is no filing or other information on the
docket showing good cause for the failure.
Under the federal rules,
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
must extend the time for service for an appropriate
period.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
January 22, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-03943 Document 7 Filed 01/22/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 2

2
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). The court ordered that service be made by
December 5, 2025. ECF No. 6. Plaintiff has not complied. Thus,
pursuant to Rule 4(m), the court recommends that the case be
DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to serve the defendant.
The conference set for January 22, 2026, is CANCELED.
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).
Signed at Houston, Texas on January 21, 2026.
______________________________________
Peter Bray
United States Magistrate Judge
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Peter Bray
States Magistra	a	a	a	a	a	a	a	a	a	a	a	a	a	attttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttteee Ju
Case 4:25-cv-03943 Document 7 Filed 01/22/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2