Shreffler v. Tussey, 5:24-cv-00254

Plaintiff Mark Shreffler filed a lawsuit against Terry Tussey and others, alleging excessive force during an arrest (specifically, being handcuffed too tightly).
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), Shreffler had 90 days from filing to serve process on Tussey (until December 17, 2024), but service was not completed until January 8, 2025, and allegedly only with a summons, not the complaint.
Shreffler disputed that only the summons was served, but nonetheless served Tussey again with both documents on February 20, 2025, after the motion to dismiss was filed, curing any possible technical defect.
Tussey moved to dismiss the complaint for insufficient service of process and process, citing the missed deadline and alleged deficiencies.
The Court reviewed the circumstances, including efforts made by Shreffler, possible prejudice to both parties, and whether the claims would be time-barred if dismissed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Late Service Beyond Rule 4(m) Deadline	Extension should be granted (efforts made)	Service was untimely and insufficient	Court exercised discretion to extend
Sufficiency of Initial Service	Both summons and complaint were served	Only summons was served (not sufficient process)	Defect was cured by second service
Good Cause for Extension	Good-faith attempts hindered by locating	No good cause; delay was plaintiff's responsibility	Good cause not found, but discretionary
Prejudice If Dismissed	Claims would be time-barred, key defendant	No undue prejudice by dismissal beyond defense burden	Plaintiff would be severely prejudiced

United States v. Oakland Physicians Med. Ctr., LLC, 44 F.4th 565 (6th Cir. 2022) (sets forth framework for discretionary extension of service deadline)
Friedman v. Est. of Presser, 929 F.2d 1151 (6th Cir. 1991) (inadvertence or minimal efforts do not constitute good cause for late service)
Henderson v. United States, 517 U.S. 654 (1996) (court retains discretion to grant extension absent good cause)