Mane v. Edlow

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
Nathuram Babalya Mane,
Plaintiff,
v.
Joseph Edlow
Director, US Citizenship and
Immigration Services,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Action H-25-4735
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
The court recommends that this case be DISMISSED
without prejudice for failure to serve the Defendant.
Plaintiff Nathuram Babalya Mane filed his complaint on
October 3, 2025. ECF No. 1. On January 9, 2026, the court ordered
that Plaintiff shall serve the Defendant by January 30, 2026. ECF
No. 8. 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
February 10, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-04735 Document 11 Filed 02/10/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 2

2
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). The court ordered that service be made by
January 30, 2026. ECF No. 8. 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 April 17, 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 February 10, 2026.
______________________________________
Peter Bray
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 4:25-cv-04735 Document 11 Filed 02/10/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2