Welby Thomas Cox, Jr. v. Smiles for Life, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted December 22, 2025*
Decided December 22, 2025
Before
MICHAEL B. BRENNAN, Chief Judge
MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge
AMY J. ST. EVE, Circuit Judge
No. 25-1687
WELBY THOMAS COX, JR.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
SMILES FOR LIFE, INC., et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Southern District of
Indiana, Indianapolis Division.
No. 1:24-cv-02107-MPB-MJD
Matthew P. Brookman,
Judge.
O R D E R
Welby Cox, Jr. appeals the judgment dismissing his civil lawsuit for
noncompliance with court-ordered deadlines. We affirm.
* The appellees were not served with process and are not participating in this
appeal. We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the brief and
record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would not
significantly aid the court. F ED. R. A PP . P. 34(a)(2)(C).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with F ED. R. APP . P. 32.1

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 25-1687 Page 2
Cox sued several dentists and dental offices for injuries he alleges he suffered
because of deficient dental care. He asserted violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1031(h), a criminal
fraud statute, as well as state-law claims of medical malpractice. The district court
screened Cox’s amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and concluded that Cox
failed to allege facts that would establish either federal question jurisdiction or diversity
jurisdiction. The court directed him to amend his complaint within a month to clarify
the defendants’ citizenship for diversity purposes, or his claim would be dismissed
without further warning. Lastly, the court, noting that the defendants had yet to be
served, denied a motion that Cox had filed for a default judgment.
Cox ignored the district court’s instructions to amend his complaint and instead
moved again for default judgment. The court again denied the motion because the
defendants had not yet been served. After Cox missed the deadline to file a second
amended complaint, the court dismissed the case without prejudice.
Cox limits his appeal to challenging the denials of his motions for default
judgment. He insists that he properly served the defendants, and as proof of service he
points to certified mail receipts that he filed in the district court. But the court’s rulings
were correct. The plaintiff in a federal lawsuit must ensure that each defendant is
served with a summons and a copy of the complaint. F ED. R. C IV. P. 4(b), (c)(1);
see Cardenas v. City of Chicago, 646 F.3d 1001, 1004 (7th Cir. 2011). And here, the district
court’s docket does not reflect that the clerk signed, sealed, and issued a completed
summons to Cox for service on any defendant. F ED. R. C IV. P. 4(b).
AFFIRMED

-- 2 of 2 --