PageID 383 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION PETER MICHAEL SLOAN a / b / a PETER SHATNER, Plaintiff, Case No: 8: 17 - cv - 332 - T - 27AAS WILLIAM SHATNER, Defendant ORDER BEFORE THE COURT is Plaintiff's Motion for Relief from Court Order Dismissing Plaintiff's Claim against Defendant Cherry Hepburn, Individually and d / b / a Putnam & Smith (Dkt. 30), which Shatner opposes (Dkt. 31) . Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of this Court's Order (Dkt. 29) dismissing Hepburn without prejudice due to Plaintiff's failure to show cause why she should not be dismissed for failure to timely serve summons pursuant to Rule 4 (m) . Plaintiff has not shown any reason why he failed to serve Hepburn within the time permitted or seek an extension of time. Upon ÑÐ¾ consideration, the Motion (Dkt. 30) is DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED this 31 day of July, 2017. JAMES D. WHITTEMORE United States District Judge Contrary to Plaintiff's contention, the time to serve a defendant named in the original complaint is not restarted by the filing of an amended complaint. Bolden v. City of Topeka, Kan ., 441 F. 3d 1129, 1148 (10th Cir. 2006) . " This construction of the rule prevents the plaintiff from repeatedly filing amended complaints ' to extend the time for service indefinitely [ . ] " Id. (quoting Del Raine v. Carlson, 826 F. 2d 698, 705 (7th Cir. 1987)); see also Lindley v. City of Birmingham, Ala ., 452 F. App ' x 878, 880 (11th Cir. 2011) .