Holmes v. Romulus, City of et al

Filing 8

ORDER GRANTING Plaintiff's 5 Motion for Alternate Service--Signed by Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti. (MWil)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
LORRAINE HOLMES,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 2:16-cv-16010
District Judge Denise Page Hood
Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti

THE CITY OF ROMULUS,
et al.,
Defendants.
___________________________________/
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF
TIME IN WHICH TO EFFECT SERVICE (DE 5)
Plaintiff filed her complaint in this action on February 18, 2016, naming as
Defendants the City of Romulus, John Leacher, and David Brooks. (DE 1.)
Summons were issued to all named Defendants on February 19, 2016. To date,
however, none of the Defendants have been served.
Plaintiff has therefore failed to perfect service over Defendant in accordance
with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), which provides in pertinent part as
follows:
If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed,
the court—on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff—must
dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order
that service be made within a specified time. But if the plaintiff
shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for
service for an appropriate period.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Here, more than 90 days have lapsed since Plaintiff’s
November 5, 2015 complaint was filed.
This matter is before the Court for consideration of Plaintiff’s motion for
extension of time in which to effect service over Defendants. (DE 5.) In her
motion, Plaintiff outlines the various difficulties she has experienced in trying to
serve Defendants Brooks and Leacher. Specifically, those individuals are no
longer employed by the City of Romulus and Plaintiff has been unable to
determine their current addresses. Plaintiff also points out that, if the Court were
not to grant an extension and to instead dismiss her claims without prejudice, the
statute of limitations would expire. (DE 5 at 2.) She asks for an additional 45 days
in which to attempt service over these Defendants.1
The Court concludes that Plaintiff has shown good cause for a brief
extension to the deadline under Rule 4(m). Accordingly, Plaintiff shall effect
service over all Defendants ON OR BEFORE JULY 2, 2016.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 25, 2016

s/Anthony P. Patti
Anthony P. Patti
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1

In the alternative, Plaintiff asks the Court to grant “alternate or substituted service
or other relief,” but does not specify what such alternate service may involve. This
may be an area for Plaintiff to revisit more specifically if her attempts to serve
Defendants continue to be fruitless.
2 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing order was sent to parties of record on
May 25, 2016, electronically and/or by U.S. Mail.

s/Michael Williams
Case Manager for the
Honorable Anthony P. Patti

3