BAREFOOT SANDERS, Senior Judge.
Before the Court is Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Effect Service of Process within 120 days, filed July 29, 2002.
The service history of this case is well-documented in the pleadings associated with Leggett's motion to dismiss, filed April 8, 2002, and need not be repeated. In short, Leggett complains that Cox has failed to satisfy the service requirements of FED. R. Civ. P. 4. First, Leggett claims that Cox failed to properly serve a summons together with a copy of the complaint in accordance with the requirements of FED. R. Civ. P. 4(h)(1). Second, Leggett claims that Cox, as a party to the case, is an improper process server; instead, only a nonparty over the age of 18 can properly serve Leggett. See FED. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(2), 4(h)(1); TEX. R. CIV. P. 103, 106(a). The plaintiff filed a return of service on May 8, 2002; the Court notes that plaintiff Cox signed as the process server on the document. Upon review of the record and after due consideration, the Court finds that both of Leggett's challenges to Cox's service of process are valid; the plaintiff has not served the defendant in accordance with Rule 4. As the present suit was filed on March 25, 2002, the Court further finds that the plaintiff has failed to properly serve the defendant within the 120-day deadline set forth in Rule 4(m).
If the plaintiff fails to properly serve the summons and complaint within 120 days of filing the complaint, Rule 4(m) directs the Court to dismiss the case. However, Rule 4(m) provides that dismissal for failure to serve is only appropriate in the absence of good cause for the plaintiff's failure to show why service was not made within the 120-day period. Id.; 4B CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT ARTHUR R. MILLER, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 1137 at 340-69 (3d ed. 2002) [hereinafter "WRIGHT MILLER"]. The Court notes that the plaintiff is pro se. While the plaintiff has not met the service requirements of Rule 4, he has attempted to serve the defendant. This demonstrates that plaintiff's failure to properly serve the defendant is not wholly due to a lack of diligence. The Court finds that the record demonstrates sufficient good cause for the plaintiff's failure to serve the defendant within the 120-day requirement of Rule 4(m). See 4B WRIGHT MILLER § 1137 at 342. Therefore, defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Effect Service of Process within 120 days is DENIED at this time. The plaintiff is GRANTED AN EXTENSION to effect service of process in accordance with Rule 4 no later than noon, August 23, 2002. Failure to properly effect service of process by this deadline may result in dismissal of this case.
SO ORDERED.