Brooks v. Sterling Infosystems, Inc.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
Roy W. Brooks, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	) 	ORDER
)
vs. 	)
)
Sterling Infosystems, Inc., 	) 	Case No.1:25-cY-246
)
Defendant. 	)
Plaintiff initiated the above-captioned action pro se and in forma pauperis on October 24,
2025. (Doc. Nos. 1, 3 and 4). The court reviewed Plaintiff’s complaint. Unprepared to conclude that
the complaint was devoid of any cognizable claims, the court issued an order on February 23, 2026,
directing “the Clerk’s office to effectuate service of the summons and complaint upon Defendant
in accordance with Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and, if necessary, that the service
be made by the United States Marshals Service.” (Doc. No. 6). That same day the Clerk’s office
issued a summons, which it sent to Defendant along with a copy of the complaint via certified mail
with return receipt requested.
On April 8, 2026, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Entry of Default. (Doc. No. 8). That same day
the Clerk’s office entered default against Defendant pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). (Doc. No. 9).
On April 10, 2026, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment along with, among
other things, a supporting memorandum, a statement of undisputed facts, a supplemental brief
regarding the Clerk’s entry of default, and a certificate of service reflecting that Plaintiff had sent
the aforementioned documents to the Clerk’s office for filing and service. (Doc. Nos. 10 through
12).
1
Case 1:25-cv-00246-DLH-CRH Document 13 Filed 04/13/26 Page 1 of 2

There is nothing in the record to reflect that Defendant has been properOy served with
process. 	Although a summons and copy of Plaintiff’s complaint were sent to Defendant via
certified mail, the Clerk’s office has yet to receive a return receipt and no one has otherwise entered
an appearance on Defendant’s behalf. 	As it does not appear that Defendant has been properly
served, the court ORDERS that service on Defendant be made by the United States marshal or
deputy marshal. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3). In the interim, the court shall defer ruling on Plaintiff’s
motion for partial summary judgment.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 13th day of April, 2026.
/s/ Clare R. Hochhalter
Clare R. Hochhalter, Magistrate Judge
United States District Court
2
Case 1:25-cv-00246-DLH-CRH Document 13 Filed 04/13/26 Page 2 of 2