Tami Naylor v. United States Government

E.D. Michigan

Tami Naylor v. United States Government

DecidedFebruary 27, 2026

Docket1:25-cv-13473

StatusUnknown

This text of Tami Naylor v. United States Government (Tami Naylor v. United States Government) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Michigan primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Tami Naylor v. United States Government, (E.D. Mich. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION

TAMI NAYLOR, Case No. 1:25-cv-13473 Plaintiff, Thomas L. Ludington United States District Judge v. Patricia T. Morris UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, United States Magistrate Judge

Defendant. /

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO EXTEND (ECF No. 9)

For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time to serve Defendant (ECF No. 9) is GRANTED. Plaintiff filed a complaint seeking a refund for the overpayment of taxes on October 31, 2025. (ECF No. 1). Summons’ were issued and Plaintiff mailed service and summons via certified first class mail on November 12 to the United States Attorney General, the Internal Revenue Service, and the Civil Process Clerk for the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan. (ECF Nos. 5–8). The return receipt has been received only from the Attorney General, notwithstanding tracking information showing the other two were delivered. (Id.). Plaintiff now seeks an order extending the time for service of process for 60 days in order to attempt service again. (ECF No. 9). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) provides: If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court . . . must dismiss the action . . . 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.

Good cause includes “mak[ing] a reasonable, diligent effort to timely effect service of process.” Pearison v. Pinkerton’s Inc., 90 F. App’x 811, 813 (6th Cir. 2004). Rule 4(i) governs serving the United States and its agencies and allows service by registered or certified mail. Plaintiff made a reasonable, diligent effort to serve Defendant in a timely manner. Good cause having been shown, IT IS ORDERED that the deadline for service is hereby extended for 60 days from the date of this order. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: February 27, 2026 s/ PATRICIA T. MORRIS Patricia T. Morris United States Magistrate Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION

TAMI NAYLOR, Case No. 1:25-cv-13473 Plaintiff, Thomas L. Ludington United States District Judge v. Patricia T. Morris UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, United States Magistrate Judge

Defendant. /

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO EXTEND (ECF No. 9)

For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time to serve Defendant (ECF No. 9) is GRANTED. Plaintiff filed a complaint seeking a refund for the overpayment of taxes on October 31, 2025. (ECF No. 1). Summons’ were issued and Plaintiff mailed service and summons via certified first class mail on November 12 to the United States Attorney General, the Internal Revenue Service, and the Civil Process Clerk for the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan. (ECF Nos. 5–8). The return receipt has been received only from the Attorney General, notwithstanding tracking information showing the other two were delivered. (Id.). Plaintiff now seeks an order extending the time for service of process for 60 days in order to attempt service again. (ECF No. 9). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) provides: If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court . . . must dismiss the action . . . 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.

Good cause includes “mak[ing] a reasonable, diligent effort to timely effect service of process.” Pearison v. Pinkerton’s Inc., 90 F. App’x 811, 813 (6th Cir. 2004). Rule 4(i) governs serving the United States and its agencies and allows service by registered or certified mail. Plaintiff made a reasonable, diligent effort to serve Defendant in a timely manner. Good cause having been shown, IT IS ORDERED that the deadline for service is hereby extended for 60 days from the date of this order. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: February 27, 2026 s/ PATRICIA T. MORRIS Patricia T. Morris United States Magistrate Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Tami Naylor v. United States Government, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tami-naylor-v-united-states-government-mied-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack