requires personal service. The Court disagrees. The process server’s method of delivery was reasonably calculated to ensure Mrs. Terry received the subpoena. Indeed, despite numerous opportunities to do so, Mrs. Terry has never asserted that she did not actually get the subpoena in a timely fashion. The circumstances present in this case constituted delivery. See, e.g., Phillips v. Ottey, No. CV DKC 14-0980, 2016 WL 6582647, at *2 n.5 (D. Md. Nov. 7, 2016) (“The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has not addressed whether a non-party subpoena must be personally served, but courts in this district have focused on whether the recipient has received ‘actual .notice’ of the subpoena.” (citation omitted)); Bland v. Fairfax Cty., 275 F.R.D. 466, 471-72 (E.D. Va. 2011) (<HOLDING>); In re Falcon Air Exp., Inc., No. 06-11877,
holding the rule 4 requirement of delivery to the appropriate united states attorney required personal service not service by certified mail holding that service is not avoided by service on a partys attorney as service on an attorney is ineffective unless he has been authorized to accept such service holding that delivery of subpoena via federal express was sufficient because effective service under rule 45 is not limited to personal service holding rule 45b does not require personal service to the exclusion of other manners of service so long as the nonpersonal service was effected by means reasonably sure to complete delivery holding that rule 45b does not require personal service