Leader v. Livingston Parish Sc ( 1999 )

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit
___________________________
No. 98-30778
___________________________
NIKKI LEADER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS
SCHOOL BOARD OF THE PARISH OF LIVINGSTON, LOUISIANA; J. ROGERS
POPE; AND J. LLOYD WAX,
Defendants-Appellees.
___________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana
(97-CV-878)
___________________________________________________
February 12, 1999
Before DAVIS, DUHÉ, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Plaintiff-Appellant appeals the dismissal of her suit against
Defendants-Appellees for failure to timely serve Defendants-
Appellees in accordance with FED.R.CIV.P. 4(m) and also appeals the
denial of her Motion for Reconsideration.
FED.R.CIV.P. 4(m) authorizes a district court to dismiss a
complaint if not timely served, unless good cause is shown for the
failure. If good cause is shown, the district court must extend
the time for service of process. Even if good cause is not shown,
however, the district court may, in its discretion, extend the time
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
for service of process. Thompson v. Brown, 91 F.3d 20 (5th Cir.
1996).
In the present case, the district court correctly relied upon
the definition of “good cause” in Lindsey v. United States Railroad
Retirement Bd., 101 F.3d 444 (5th Cir. 1996). See McGinnis v.
Shalala, 2 F.3d 548, 550 n.1 (5th Cir.), reh’g en banc denied, 5
F.3d 530 (5th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1191, 114 S.Ct.
1293, 127 L.Ed.2d 647 (1994) (noting that Pioneer Investment
Services Co. v. Brunswick Associated Limited Partnership, 507 U.S.
380, 113 S.Ct. 1489, 123 L.Ed.2d 74 (1993), did not change the
standard of good cause under FED.R.CIV.P. 4(m)). The district
court found that Plaintiff-Appellant had not shown good cause and
granted the Motion to Dismiss. We find no abuse of discretion in
this decision and affirm the district court’s Judgment of April 6,
1998.
On reconsideration, the district court again found that
Plaintiff-Appellant had not shown good cause and also declined to
exercise its discretion to extend the time for service of process
even when good cause is not shown. We find no abuse of discretion
in this decision and affirm the district court’s Ruling of June 16,
1998.
AFFIRMED.
2