Fred Plummer filed a complaint against Officer Timothy Ochsenschlager of the Metropolitan Police Department. ECF No. 1. Because Mr. Plummer is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis , he may rely on the Clerk of Court to issue summonses and on the United States Marshals Service to effect service of process on his behalf. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3). But it is the Plaintiff’s responsibility to provide the name and full address of each party, and his failure to do so may result in dismissal of the case. See LCvR 5.1(c)(1). The court “has no duty to assist a plaintiff in locating a defendant’s address for the purpose of service of process.” Paolone v. Mueller , No. 5-cv- 2300, 2006 WL 2346448, at *2 (D.D.C. Aug. 11, 2006).

A deputy marshal unsuccessfully attempted to serve Officer Ochsenschlager at the address that Mr. Plummer provided in his Complaint. See ECF No. 6. On January 16, 2019, the Court ordered Mr. Plummer to provide the full name and address for Officer Ochsenschlager by February 18, 2019. ECF No. 7. As of the date of this Opinion, Mr. Plummer has not complied with this Order and instead filed a Motion for Default for Officer Ochsenschlager’s purported “failure to answer summons.” ECF No. 9. Without *2 a valid and complete address for the defendant, the Court will dismiss this civil action, see Ward v. Vogel , No. 13-cv-1411, 2014 WL 4099131, at *1 (D.D.C. Aug. 20, 2014), and deny Mr. Plummer’s Motion for Default as moot. A separate order will issue. Dated: February 22, 2019 TREVOR N. McFADDEN

United States District Judge