El v. U.S. Bank National Association

Background

Plaintiff Delaneo-Nathaniel Tillman: El filed a complaint on July 9, 2025, asserting claims concerning what he described as an unlawful deprivation of property rights related to a disputed real-estate foreclosure and later eviction proceedings. He filed an amended complaint on July 11, 2025, naming U.S. Bank National Association, Kayak Properties, Inc., and John Does 1–5 as defendants.

More than 90 days after the complaint was filed, the defendants had not appeared. The court determined that Plaintiff had not filed proof showing proper service under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 or a waiver of service. The court noted that Plaintiff had sent the summons and amended complaint by certified mail to U.S. Bank National Association and Kayak Properties, Inc., but concluded that this was not effective service because certified mail was not a permitted method for serving a corporation, partnership, or association under Rule 4(h), and because a party may not serve process under Rule 4(c)(2).

Prior Court Order and Failure to Prosecute

On January 5, 2026, the court directed Plaintiff either to properly serve the defendants and file proof of service or a waiver, or to explain in writing why he could not do so. The court stated that it would recommend dismissal for failure to prosecute if Plaintiff did not comply within 20 days.

The Report and Recommendation states that Plaintiff did not comply. He did not file proof of service or take other action to prosecute the case. The January 5 order was returned as undeliverable to the address Plaintiff had provided, and Plaintiff had not updated his address by the date of the Report and Recommendation.

Recommendation

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), a court may dismiss an action when a plaintiff fails to prosecute or fails to comply with the rules or a court order. The court explained that it may dismiss a case for failure to prosecute without waiting for a defendant to file a motion.

Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright recommended that the action be dismissed without prejudice under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute. The recommendation was based on Plaintiff’s failure to properly serve the defendants, failure to follow the January 5 order, and failure to keep the court informed of his current address. The recommendation did not decide the merits of Plaintiff’s property-related claims.

Status and Objections

The document is a magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, not an order or judgment of the District Court. It stated that it was therefore not directly appealable to the Court of Appeals. The notice allowed a party to file specific written objections within 14 days after being served with the Report and Recommendation, and allowed a response to objections within 14 days after service of the objections.