of Summons Goodman, acting in his individual capacity, claims dismissal of Wright’s personal capacity claims is proper because Wright failed to effect proper service upon Goodman. He claims Wright’s decision to mail his pleadings does not amount to service because mailing pleadings is not a proper method of service in Nevada and is thus improper under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e). Because he did not waive service and was not personally served, Goodman concludes any attempted service by Wright was ineffective. Even if Wright properly served Goodman in his official capacity, Goodman must still be served in his personal capacity. See Kirkendall v. Univ. of Conn. Health Ctr., 205 F.3d 1323, 2000 WL 232071, at *1 (2d Cir.2000); cf. Robinson v. Turner, 15 F.3d 82, 85 (7th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>) (citing Micklus v. Carlson, 632 F.2d 227, 240
holding a suit against a sheriff in his individual capacity was subject to section 1146llls notice requirements because the sheriff was acting in his official capacity holding plaintiff stated claim in his individual capacity holding title ix does not support an action against official in an individual capacity holding that in a bivens action service upon employee in his official capacity does not amount to service in his individual capacity holding that a state officer sued in his individual capacity may be held personally liable for damages under 42 usc  1983 based upon actions taken in his official capacity