Flannery v. HBO Digital Services, Inc.

Background

James Flannery filed the complaint on February 7, 2025. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), he had 90 days to serve the defendants, making May 8, 2025, the service deadline. He did not file proof of service on the docket.

On July 3, 2025, the court ordered Flannery to file a letter by July 18, 2025, either providing proof that service had been made or showing good cause—an adequate explanation—for not serving the defendants within the required period. The court warned that failure to respond could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute, meaning failure to move the case forward. Flannery did not file the required letter, provide proof of service, seek an extension, or otherwise communicate with the court. The defendants had not appeared.

Court’s analysis

The court relied first on Rule 4(m), which requires dismissal without prejudice when a defendant has not been served within 90 days, unless the court orders service within a specified time. Because more than 90 days had passed and Flannery had not filed proof of service or shown good cause, the court dismissed the action under that rule.

The court also relied on Rule 41(b) and its authority to dismiss a case for failure to prosecute. It considered the duration of Flannery’s inaction, his notice that noncompliance could result in dismissal, the court’s interest in managing its docket, and whether a lesser sanction would be adequate. The court concluded that these considerations supported dismissal and that no sanction other than dismissal would be adequate.

Ruling

Judge Margaret M. Garnett ordered that the case be dismissed without prejudice. The clerk was directed to close the case. The opinion does not address the merits of Flannery’s claims.