UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
June 6, 2007
MICHAEL BINEGAR, PLAINTIFF
PEORIA PRODUCTION SHOP, DEFENDANT
The opinion of the court was delivered by: John A. Gorman United States Magistrate Judge
On May 11, 2007, Plaintiff (who is proceeding pro se) filed a Summons Returned Executed, showing service on May 7, 2007. An examination of that return, however, reveals two flaws: Plaintiff himself delivered the summons and complaint; and plaintiff delivered the summons and complaint to an individual not a party to this suit and not identified by title or office connected to the named defendant.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(c)(2) provides that service may be effected "by any person who is not a party" and who meets other requirements. Because plaintiff himself delivered the summons and complaint, service was ineffective under that Rule.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(h) provides the proper method for service on a corporation, partnership or other association subject to suit under a common name. The Rule requires service of the summons and complaint to "an officer, a managing or general agent, or to any other agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process." Plaintiff's return of service shows delivery of the summons and complaint to Pamela Cregor, a person not identified as falling into one of the listed categories and not a party to this suit. Service on Peoria Production Shop therefore appears ineffective under that Rule.
For both of these reasons, I find that defendant has not been served. Plaintiff is referred to Fed.R.Civ.P. 4 and is directed to effect proper service thereunder.
ENTER this 6th day of June 2007.
© 1992-2007 VersusLaw Inc.