UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-2240
GAIL HEMPHILL DANIK,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
HOUSING AUTHORITY OF BALTIMORE CITY; PAUL GRAZIANO, Housing
Director; SHEILA DIXON, Mayor of Baltimore City; MARTIN
O’MALLEY, Governor,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge.
(1:08-cv-03036-JFM)
Submitted: August 25, 2010 Decided: September 15, 2010
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gail Hemphill Danik, Appellant Pro Se. Carrie Blackburn Riley,
Baltimore, Maryland; Gary Gilkey, Assistant Solicitor, BALTIMORE
CITY DEPARTMENT OF LAW, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Gail Danik appeals the district court’s order
dismissing her complaint, filed under Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17
(2006), for failure to effect sufficient service of process and
for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(5), (6). On appeal, she challenges only
the district court’s dismissal of Defendant Graziano.
We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s
grant of a motion to dismiss for insufficient service of process
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(5). Dickerson v. Napolitano, 604
F.3d 732, 740 (2d Cir. 2010); Shao v. Link Cargo (Taiwan) Ltd.,
986 F.2d 700, 708 (4th Cir. 1993). A plaintiff may defend
against a Rule 12(b)(5) motion to dismiss by establishing
adequate service. Dickerson, 604 F.3d at 752. The federal
rules require that a defendant be served with the complete
pleading and a copy of the summons. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(c) provides that a
“copy of a written instrument that is an exhibit to a pleading
is a part of the pleading for all purposes.” See Horsley v.
Feldt, 304 F.3d 1125, 1134 (11th Cir. 2002) (“It would seem to
follow [from Rule 10(c)] that if an attachment to an answer is a
‘written instrument,’ it is part of the pleadings.”); Cortec
2
Indus., Inc. v. Sum Holding L.P., 949 F.2d 42, 47 (2d Cir. 1991)
(“Relying on Rule 10(c), we have held that the complaint is
deemed to include any written instrument attached to it as an
exhibit or any statements or documents incorporated in it by
reference.”). Here, in addition to her substantive complaint,
all exhibits Danik attached when she filed her complaint are
part of that pleading. Thus, Danik’s complaint included her
recitation of her cause of action, along with appended material
she filed with and received from the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”).
In a case in which the district court permits the
plaintiff to file in forma pauperis, the district court must
direct the United States Marshals Service to effectuate service
of process. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P.
4(c)(3). See Robinson v. Clipse, 602 F.3d 605, 608 (4th Cir.
2010) (“In forma pauperis plaintiffs must rely on the district
court and the U.S. Marshals Service to effect service of process
according to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.”). However, the plaintiff must
provide sufficient information to identify the defendant with
“reasonable effort.” Richardson v. Johnson, 598 F.3d 734, 738-
40 (11th Cir. 2010); Graham v. Satkoski, 51 F.3d 710, 713 (7th
Cir. 1995).
3
Here, the record indicates that the address Danik
initially provided was insufficient to effectuate service on
Graziano because “the addressee was not known” at the specified
address. Before the district court, Danik did not provide any
explanation for this error. Nevertheless, out of an abundance
of caution, the district court granted Danik an extension of
time in which to effectuate service of process on Graziano.
Despite this extension, Danik still failed to effect
sufficient service of process because she provided an incomplete
packet to the Marshals for service on Graziano, including only
the complaint, without the appended materials or summons. In
her informal brief, Danik does not contest this vital omission.
Thus, we conclude that the district court did not err in
dismissing Danik’s cause of action, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(5).
We also find that the district court gave appropriate
consideration to Danik’s pro se status. Further, the court did
not abuse its discretion in denying Danik’s motion for
appointment of counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(l) (2006). See
Miller v. Simmons, 814 F.2d 962, 966 (4th Cir. 1987).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court order. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
4
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
5