Hart v. Federal Bureau of Investigations

Background

Brandon Hart filed the action on October 1, 2024, and summonses were issued for five defendants. He did not file proof that any defendant had been served. On January 2, 2025, the court ordered Hart to explain by January 16 why the case should not be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), which generally requires service within 90 days after a complaint is filed. The order warned that failing to respond would result in a recommendation of dismissal. Hart did not respond by that deadline and instead filed a separate, largely duplicative action.

Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave issued a March 4, 2025, Report and Recommendation advising dismissal without prejudice for failure to serve the defendants. Hart filed more than 350 pages of documents. Judge Cave treated one filing, submitted March 14, as at least partly responsive objections, but concluded that it did not provide a basis to change or set aside the recommendation. The defendants responded to the objections.

Court’s Analysis

The district court explained that a party who objects to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is generally entitled to a fresh review of the challenged portions. General or conclusory objections may instead receive review for clear error. The court also recognized that filings by people without lawyers receive a liberal reading, but that self-represented parties must still follow procedural and substantive rules.

Hart’s objections fell into three categories. First, he said that a process server would not return his emails, preventing him from paying and obtaining proof of service. The court found that he provided no documentation showing that he had hired a process server or attempted to confirm service. It noted that he could have hired another process server or requested more time, but instead filed the second action.

Second, Hart made general accusations of sabotage. The court found that he did not identify who allegedly engaged in sabotage, what they did, or how their conduct affected service. The court held that these generalized assertions were not enough to establish good cause.

Third, Hart discussed the merits of his claims and acknowledged filing the second action because he expected the current case might be dismissed. The court found that these arguments did not establish good cause for failing to serve the defendants. Because Hart had not shown good cause, the court also found that the circumstances did not justify giving him a discretionary extension of time.

Ruling

Judge Lorna G. Schofield adopted the Report and Recommendation in full and overruled Hart’s objections. The case was dismissed without prejudice for failure to serve the defendants. The clerk was directed to terminate the case and mail Hart a copy of the order. The opinion stated that the second action still provided Hart an opportunity to pursue relief based on these facts.