KATHERINE P. NELSON, Magistrate Judge.
This action is before the Court sua sponte on review of the record. The Plaintiff filed its complaint on October 13, 2016. (Doc. 1). On February 8, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a verified notice purporting to evidence service of process under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 on Defendant Clearview Marine, Inc. ("Clearview") via certified U.S. first class mail on January 25, 2017. (Doc. 26). Accordingly, Clearview's responsive pleading would have been due February 15, 2017. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1). To date Clearview has failed to answer or otherwise defend, and the Plaintiff has not sought entry of default against Clearview.
A review of the Plaintiff's proof of service (Doc. 26), however, does not sufficiently show that Clearview has been served with process in this action. The certified mail receipt indicates that the summons and complaint were mailed to Clearview "c/o its Registered Agent, Veronica Jattan," in Kissimmee, Florida. (Doc. 26-1 at 2). However, the receipt was signed by an individual identifying herself as "Marcia Jattan," who did not indicate whether she was the addressee (i.e. Veronica) or her agent. (Id.). The Plaintiff's verified notice does not explain who "Marcia Jattan" is or why her acceptance of the complaint and summons constitutes sufficient service of process on Clearview.
"If a defendant is not served within 90 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). Upon consideration, the Plaintiff is