CURRIE v. MCKINNEY, 5:23-cv-00183

Plaintiff Devon Currie filed a second amended complaint and sought to serve two defendants, Patterson and Green, with process.
Initial service attempts using the United States Marshals Service and a special process server were unsuccessful at both work and personal addresses.
Plaintiff's counsel identified alternate addresses and persisted in efforts, including hiring a new process server.
Plaintiff filed a motion under Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to extend the deadline for service by thirty days.
The court evaluated whether to grant a permissive extension for service despite plaintiff not showing "good cause" for the delay.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Extension of service deadline under FRCP 4(m)	Currie argues for a thirty-day extension due to diligent but unsuccessful service attempts.	Defendants have not been served and may argue for dismissal for lack of timely service.	Court grants a permissive thirty-day extension to serve Patterson and Green.

Fitzpatrick v. Bank Of New York Mellon, [citation="580 F. App'x 690"] (11th Cir. 2014) (plaintiff is responsible for ensuring service of process on defendant)
Lepone-Dempsey v. Carroll Cnty. Comm’rs, 476 F.3d 1277 (11th Cir. 2007) (district court has discretion to extend time for service absent good cause)
Perez v. Wells Fargo N.A., 774 F.3d 1329 (11th Cir. 2014) (courts prefer to decide cases on the merits)
Horenkamp v. Vanwinkle and Co., Inc., 402 F.3d 1129 (11th Cir. 2005) (district courts can grant discretionary extensions for service)
Braxton v. United States, 817 F.2d 238 (3d Cir. 1987) (explains Rule 4(m) good cause standard)