Reported / Citable
Background
Cadence Bank sued Beauty Revolution and Co LLC and Fernando Serrano in the Southern District of Texas. The opinion does not describe the substantive claims.
On May 20, 2026, the court canceled the initial scheduling conference and ordered Cadence to properly serve the defendants within 30 days. The order warned that noncompliance would lead to a dismissal recommendation. Cadence did not comply and did not show good cause for failing to serve the defendants.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Richard W. Bennett recommended that the action be dismissed without prejudice. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), a court must dismiss an unserved defendant or order service within a specified time after notice to the plaintiff when service is not made within 90 days, absent good cause.
The magistrate judge also concluded that Cadence’s failure to obey the service order prevented the case from moving forward. The recommendation therefore invoked the court’s inherent authority and Rule 41(b) principles permitting sua sponte dismissal for failure to prosecute or comply with court orders.
Key Takeaways
- The document is a magistrate judge’s recommendation, not a final dismissal order.
- Failure to comply with a court-ordered service deadline, without good cause, supported dismissal without prejudice.
- The parties had 14 days after receipt to file written objections under Rule 72(b).
Why It Matters
The recommendation illustrates that a plaintiff’s failure to complete service after a direct warning can end a case before its merits are reached. Because the proposed dismissal was without prejudice, Cadence could refile and pursue its claims if it complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.