[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 16-15884

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:15-cv-23945-FAM

STUART MARVIN REIS, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

 versus

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 

 Defendant-Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(October 3, 2017)

Before JULIE CARNES, JILL PRYOR, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.

Case: 16-15884 Date Filed: 10/03/2017 Page: 1 of 6 
2

PER CURIAM: 

Plaintiff Stuart Melvin Reis appeals the district court’s orders (1) dismissing 

his complaint seeking review of the Social Security Administration’s denial of 

disability insurance benefits and (2) denying Plaintiff’s motion for rehearing or for 

reconsideration, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and 60(b). Reversible error has 

been shown; we vacate the dismissal and remand for further proceedings.

On 21 October 2015, Plaintiff filed this civil complaint in district court. 

Under the version of Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) then in effect, Plaintiff had 120 days --

or until 18 February 2016 -- to serve defendants. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) (2014). 

On 23 February 2016, the magistrate judge issued a report and 

recommendation (“R&R”), recommending that Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed 

without prejudice -- pursuant to Rule 4(m) -- for failure to effectuate timely service 

of process. On 31 March 2016, the district court adopted the R&R and dismissed 

Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice.

Thereafter, Plaintiff filed a motion for rehearing or for reconsideration under 

Rules 59(e) and 60(b). Plaintiff also sought an extension of the time for service of 

process. In pertinent part, Plaintiff explained that the failure to serve defendants 

properly was due to an oversight by his lawyer. Plaintiff also argued that -- even 

absent good cause -- an extension was warranted because he would be time-barred 

Case: 16-15884 Date Filed: 10/03/2017 Page: 2 of 6 
3

from refiling his complaint under the applicable statute of limitations. The district 

court denied Plaintiff’s motion. 

“[W]e review for abuse of discretion a court’s dismissal without prejudice of 

a plaintiff’s complaint for failure to timely serve a defendant under Rule 4(m).” 

Lepone-Dempsey v. Carroll Cnty. Comm’rs, 476 F.3d 1277, 1280 (11th Cir. 

2007). We review the denial of a motion for relief from judgment under Rule 

60(b) under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Cheney v. Anchor Glass Container 

Corp., 71 F.3d 848, 849 n.2 (11th Cir. 1996). 

Under Rule 4(m), “[i]f a defendant is not served within 120 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.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) (2014). If, 

however, “plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the 

time for service for an appropriate period.” Id. 

Plaintiff does not dispute that he failed to serve timely the United States 

Attorney. In addition, although Plaintiff served the Commissioner of the Social 

Security Administration and the United States Attorney General within the 120-

day time limit, that Plaintiff failed to file timely proof of service with the district 

court is undisputed. 

Case: 16-15884 Date Filed: 10/03/2017 Page: 3 of 6 
4

Plaintiff has failed to show good cause for his failure to effect proper 

service. “Good cause exists only when some outside factor, such as reliance on 

faulty advice, rather than inadvertence or negligence, prevented service.” LeponeDempsey, 476 F.3d at 1281 (quotations omitted). Plaintiff’s contention that the 

failure to serve defendants was a result of an “oversight” by his lawyer is 

insufficient: a lawyer’s negligence constitutes no “good cause” for purposes of 

Rule 4. See id. 

Even absent a showing of good cause, however, district courts have 

discretion to extend the time for service of process. Id.; Horenkamp v. Van Winkle 

& Co., Inc., 402 F.3d 1129, 1132 (11th Cir. 2005). We have said that, where no 

good cause is shown, “the district court must still consider whether any other 

circumstances warrant an extension of time based on the facts of the case.” 

Lepone-Dempsey, 476 F.3d at 1282. For example, an extension of time “may be 

justified . . . if the applicable statute of limitations would bar the refiled action . . . 

.” Id. (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m), Advisory Committee Note, 1993 Amendments). 

“Only after considering whether any such factors exist may the district court 

exercise its discretion and either dismiss the case without prejudice or direct that 

service be effected within a specified time.” Id. (emphasis added) (explaining that 

the district court’s dismissal without prejudice “was premature, as it did not clearly 

Case: 16-15884 Date Filed: 10/03/2017 Page: 4 of 6 
5

consider, after finding that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate good cause, whether 

a permissive extension of time was warranted under the facts of this case.”). 

In its order of dismissal, the district court said only that Plaintiff’s complaint 

was dismissed without prejudice for failure “to effectuate service on Defendant by 

the deadline required by the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).” In denying 

Plaintiff’s motion for relief under Rules 59(e) and 60(b), the district court said only 

that the motion was denied “as the dismissal was without prejudice.” 

We cannot determine from the district court’s orders whether the district 

court considered “other circumstances” -- including the possibility that Plaintiff 

would be barred from refiling by the pertinent statute of limitations -- that might 

warrant an extension of time. It is “incumbent upon the district court to at least 

consider” the impact of the statute of limitations before dismissing a case without 

prejudice under Rule 4(m). Id. From the record here, that Plaintiff would be 

permitted to refile his complaint notwithstanding the running of the statute of 

limitations is not apparent. Absent additional factual findings or explanation by 

the district court, we are unable to determine whether the dismissal in this case was 

proper. See id.; Danley v. Allen, 480 F.3d 1090, 1091 (11th Cir. 2007) (a district 

court’s orders must “contain sufficient explanations of their rulings so as to 

provide this Court with an opportunity to engage in meaningful appellate 

review.”). 

Case: 16-15884 Date Filed: 10/03/2017 Page: 5 of 6 
6

Accordingly, we vacate the dismissal and remand the case for further 

proceedings.

VACATED AND REMANDED.

Case: 16-15884 Date Filed: 10/03/2017 Page: 6 of 6