Estay, et al. v. Teton County Sheriff's Department, et al.

ORDER EXTENDING SERVICE DEADLINE - 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF IDAHO
PETER J. ESTAY and STEPHANIE S. ESTAY,
Plaintiffs,
v.
TETON COUNTY SHERIFF, TETON
COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT,
Sergeant C. BERRY, individually and in his
official capacity as a deputy of Teton County
Sheriff Department, Deputy H. MAJORS,
individually and in his officially capacity as a
deputy of the Teton County Sheriff
Department, Deputy E. WARN, individually
and in his official capacity as a deputy of
Teton County Sheriff Department, Deputy
BEN GUIMONT, individually and in his
official capacity as a deputy of Teton County
Sheriff Department, CLINT LEMIEUX,
individually and in his official capacity as the
Sheriff of Teton County Idaho, and
JOHN/JANE DOES 1-10, individually and in
their official capacities,
Defendants.
Case No. 1:25-cv-00716-BLW-REP
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
RE: PLAINTIFFS’ FAILURE TO
EFFECTUATE SERVICE
This action was filed on December 22, 2025 (Dkt. 1). The deadline for Plaintiffs to
effectuate service was March 23, 2026. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(1) and 4(m) (the “plaintiff is
responsible for having the summons and complaint served” within “90 days after the complaint
is filed.”). Plaintiffs did not file a status report on service of process as required by District of
Idaho Local Rule 4.1. Nor did Plaintiffs timely file proof of service with the Court as required
by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(l).
On April 6, 2026, the undersigned entered an order extending the service deadline to May
6, 2026 (Dkt. 9). The undersigned noted that in cases where defendants are not timely served,
Case 1:25-cv-00716-BLW-REP Document 10 Filed 06/04/26 Page 1 of 2

ORDER EXTENDING SERVICE DEADLINE - 2
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) directs “the court—on motion or on its own after notice to
the plaintiff—[to] dismiss the action without prejudice against [the unserved] defendant or order
that service be made within a specified time.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). In accordance with that
Rule, the undersigned gave Plaintiffs thirty additional days to serve Defendants. Further, the
undersigned clearly stated that “[f]ailure to effectuate service by this deadline may result in the
dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claims without prejudice under Rule 4(m) without further notice to
Plaintiffs.” Dkt. 9 at 2.
Plaintiffs’ service deadline expired twenty-nine days ago. To date, Plaintiffs have neither
served Defendants nor otherwise appeared to explain their failure to effectuate service. The
undersigned’s April 6 order gave Plaintiffs clear notice that missing the service deadline could
result in dismissal without prejudice. Thus, dismissal without prejudice is proper under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that, pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 4(m), Plaintiffs’ action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to properly
serve Defendants and file proof of that service with the Court.
DATED: June 4, 2026
________________________
Honorable Raymond E. Patricco
Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge
Case 1:25-cv-00716-BLW-REP Document 10 Filed 06/04/26 Page 2 of 2