Lithonia Harris v. Officer Anthony Tillman , 530 F. App'x 901 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •             Case: 13-10687    Date Filed: 09/17/2013   Page: 1 of 2
    [DO NOT PUBLISH]
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    ________________________
    No. 13-10687
    Non-Argument Calendar
    ________________________
    D.C. Docket No. 2:11-cv-00025-LGW-JEG
    LITHONIA HARRIS,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    versus
    SHERIFF BILLY DELOCH,
    Appling County, et al.,
    Defendants,
    OFFICER ANTHONY TILLMAN,
    a.k.a. Talmadge,
    Defendant-Appellee.
    ________________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Georgia
    ________________________
    (September 17, 2013)
    Before DUBINA, WILSON, and HILL, Circuit Judges.
    Case: 13-10687     Date Filed: 09/17/2013   Page: 2 of 2
    PER CURIAM:
    Lithonia J. Harris appeals the dismissal as time barred of his § 1983 action
    against Officer Anthony Tillman, arguing that his failure to effect timely service of
    process was due to “inadvertence and delays due to no fault of [his own].” The
    Magistrate Judge, who prepared a report and recommendation on Officer Tillman’s
    motion to dismiss, agreed and recommended that the motion be denied.
    The district court, however, rejected this recommendation, finding that
    Harris failed to supply either the correct address or name for defendant Tillman,
    causing the excessive delay in serving him and further causing the statute of
    limitations to expire before service had been effected. The court further held that
    Harris’ subsequent “amendment” of his complaint to provide the defendant’s
    correct name did not “relate back” to the filing of his complaint because Tillman
    had no way of knowing he was being sued within the relevant time period.
    Accordingly, the district court granted Tillman’s motion to dismiss, holding that
    plaintiff’s complaint was not timely filed.
    We have reviewed the record and considered the chain of events that led to
    the dismissal of Harris’ complaint. On balance, we conclude that the district
    court’s judgment of dismissal should be affirmed. Accordingly, the judgment is
    AFFIRMED.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 13-10687

Citation Numbers: 530 F. App'x 901

Judges: Dubina, Hill, Per Curiam, Wilson

Filed Date: 9/17/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023