Testo completo
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 25-2930
___________________________
Dana Watson
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant
v.
Arrow Senior Living The Boulevard of St. Charles
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis
____________
Submitted: February 25, 2026
Filed: March 6, 2026
[Unpublished]
____________
Before BENTON, KELLY, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Dana Watson appeals after the district court denied her post-judgment motions
seeking relief following the dismissal of her pro se employment action for insufficient
service of process. The district court concluded Watson did not properly serve Arrow
Senior Living within 90 days of filing her complaint and denied her an extension of
-- 1 of 2 --
time under Federal Rule Civil Procedure 4(m) to effect service, as she had not
demonstrated good cause.
After careful review of the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, we
conclude remand is necessary for the district court to consider in the first instance
whether to grant Watson a discretionary extension of time to effect service. See
Kurka v. Iowa Cnty., 628 F.3d 953, 957-59 (8th Cir. 2010) (under Rule 4(m), absent
good cause, court may extend time for service rather than dismiss case without
prejudice; to warrant discretionary extension, plaintiff must establish excusable
neglect; factors informing determination include, inter alia, possibility of prejudice
to defendant, reason for delay, and “lethal effect” of running of statute of limitations);
Buon v. Spindler, 65 F.4th 64, 75-76 (2d Cir. 2023) (remanding for consideration
whether Rule 4(m) extension warranted where it was unclear whether court
considered discretionary extension).
Accordingly, we vacate the dismissal order and remand the case to the district
court for further proceedings.
______________________________
-2-
-- 2 of 2 --