Feedback

Terrell V Woodard

           UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                           
             MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA                           
                  ORLANDO DIVISION                                


BRYANT TERRELL,                                                        

          Plaintiff,                                              

v.                                    Case No:  6:25-cv-468-CEM-LHP    

TERRENCE WOODARD,                                                      

          Defendant                                               




                        ORDER                                     
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Have a U.S. Marshal Deliver the Case 
Summons to the Defendant.  Doc. No. 13.  Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, asks that 
the Court authorize service by the United States Marshals Service, stating that the 
Defendant  is  “[his]  previous  employer  at  Great  Oaks  Village  Orange  County 
Government” and that Plaintiff is “unable to access the company property because 
[he has] been terminated from Orange County Government.”  Id.  Upon review, 
the motion (Doc. No. 13) is DENIED without prejudice.                  
As  an  initial  matter, the  motion  fails  to comply  with  Local  Rule  3.01(a) 
because  it  does  not  include  a  memorandum  of  legal  authority  in  support.  
Moreover, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(3) provides that “the court may 
order that service be made by a United States marshal or deputy marshal or by a 
person specially appointed by the court.  The court must so order if the plaintiff is 

authorized to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 or as a seaman 
under 28 U.S.C. § 1916.”                                               
Here, because Plaintiff has paid the filing fee, the Court is not obligated to 

order that service be made by the United States Marshal.  See Somerville v. Dep’t of 
Health & Hum. Servs., No. 6:24-cv-2185-JSS-EJK, 2024 WL 5090233, at *1 (M.D. Fla. 
Dec. 12, 2024).  And “although Rule 4(c)(3) . . . gives the [c]ourt discretion to order 
the United States Marshal to serve civil process, the Advisory Committee Notes 

state that [such] appointment . . . is generally proper when it is necessary to keep 
the peace.”  Id. (citing Nappi v. Welcom Prods., Inc., No. 8:13-cv-3183-T-33TGW, 2014 
WL  2050826,  at  *2  (M.D.  Fla.  May  19,  2014)).    Plaintiff  has  not  argued  that 

circumstance is present here, and Plaintiff’s motion does not establish why service 
by the United States Marshal is necessary, given that there are available avenues for 
Plaintiff to effect service, to include retaining a private process server or requesting 

that Defendant waive service.  See Prosperous v. Todd, No. 8:17-cv-996-T-33MAP, 
2017 WL 2291367, at *1 (M.D. Fla. May 25, 2017) (denying Rule 4(c)(3) motion for 
same reason); see also GMAC Real Est., LLC v. Waterfront Realty Grp., Inc., No. 2:09-
cv-546-FtM-36SPC,  2010  WL  2465170,  at  *2  (M.D.  Fla.  June  15,  2010) (denying 

motion to appoint special process server where “Plaintiff has provided no factual 
basis for why a court order is necessary to accomplish service of process and does 
not include any legal authority in support of its Motion other than Rule 4(c)(3)”). 
 DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on July 22, 2025. 

                                            |               ay    □□□□ 
                                               LESLIE       AN PRICE 
                                         UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Copies furnished to: 
Counsel of Record 
Unrepresented Parties 

                                 Qo