Sanders v. Robertson, et al.
| Docket Number: | 2006-CP-00404-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-17-2007 Opinion Author: IRVING, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Personal injury - Service of process - M.R.C.P. 4(h) - M.R.C.P. 4(c) Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Chandler, Griffis, Barnes, Ishee, Roberts and Carlton, JJ. Procedural History: Dismissal Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 02-03-2006 Appealed from: NESHOBA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Marcus D. Gordon Disposition: JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL ENTERED Case Number: 05-CV-0274-NS-G |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | TYRONE SANDERS |
TYRONE SANDERS (PRO SE) |
||
| Appellee: | AMBER C. ROBERTSON AND MISSISSIPPI FARM BUREAU CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY | JOSEPH BLAIR LOBRANO, JOE S. DEATON |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Personal injury - Service of process - M.R.C.P. 4(h) - M.R.C.P. 4(c) |
| Summary of the Facts: | Tyrone Sanders filed suit against Amber Robertson and Farm Bureau Insurance Company for damages resulting from an automobile accident. The court dismissed the case because of insufficiency of process and improper service of process. Sanders appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The record fails to confirm that Sanders in fact served Robertson or Casualty Insurance, and Sanders’ statement alone that he did does not satisfy M.R.C.P. 4(h). Although the record contains certified mail receipts for mailings sent by Sanders to the named defendants, all of the receipts are dated after the case was dismissed by the trial judge. Furthermore, M.R.C.P. 4© allows three methods of service upon Mississippi residents: process server, sheriff, and first-class mail. Because Robertson is a Mississippi resident, Sanders could not use certified mail as an initial method of effecting service of process upon her. Sanders argues that he made a good faith effort to serve Robertson, but could not do so because he could not locate her. However, the record clearly belies this contention. Even if Sanders faxed a notice of lawsuit to Robertson, he still would not have not have been in compliance with Rule 4(h). Moreover, the record indicates that the fax was sent after the case had been dismissed with prejudice. If Sanders was having difficulty locating Robertson, it was incumbent upon him to petition the court for an extension of time prior to, rather than after, the expiration of the 120-day period. Pro se plaintiffs are required to strictly comply with Rule 4(h). |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
