Case ID: f-appx_6/html/0630-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Gianmaria MUSSIO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ISTITUTO ITALIANO DI CULTURA; all government officers and representative involved including S. Sechi; E. Coniglio; M. Griccioli; A. Vattani; G. De Michelis; and not to the exclusion of any other responsible party; the Government of the Republic of Italy, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 99-15747. D.C. No. CV-93-03529-MJJ.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted March 12, 2001.
    
    Decided March 28, 2001.
    Before WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
      . The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Gianmaria Mussio appeals pro se the district court's order dismissing his complaint for failure to serve named foreign defendants. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s dismissal for failure to serve a summons and complaint, Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir.1994), and we affirm.

The district court’s dismissal of the “matter” is construed as a dismissal of the action, and not a dismissal of the complaint, as the minute order directs the clerk to “close the file.”

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing without prejudice Mussio’s action. Mussio had at least one year to serve the summonses and amended complaint, and at the time of the order to show cause hearing, Mussio had not filed proofs of service. See id.

We lack jurisdiction to review the district court’s order denying Mussio’s motion for reconsideration because Mussio failed to amend his notice of appeal. See Fed. RApp. P. 4(a)(4)(B)®.

AFFIRMED. 
      
      . This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.