09 -2 10 3- cv

Prop hete v . O

ffi cer Co rtes UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

F O R T H E S E C O N D C IR C U IT S UM M ARY OR DER R ul i ngs by s um m ary or der do not have prec edent i al ef f ect . C i t at i on t o a s um m ary or der f i l ed on or af

t er January 1 , 2 0 0 7 , i s p e r m itte d a n d is g o v e r n e d b y F e d e r a l R u le o f A p p e llate P r o c e d u r e 3 2 .1 a n d th is c o u r t’s L o c a l R u le 32. 1. 1. W hen ci t i ng a s um m ary or der i n a docum ent f i l ed w i t h t hi s court , a part y m ust ci t e e i t her t he Federal A pp en dix or a n el ectron i c d ataba se (w i t h t he n otat i on “su m m ary or de r”). A p arty cit i ng a sum m ary ord er m ust se r v e a c o p y o f it on a n y p a r ty n o t r e p r e se n te d b y c o u n se l. 1 At a stated t erm of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circui t, held at the 2 Daniel Patri ck Moynihan United St ates Courthouse , 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New York, on 3 the 6 day of July, two thousand ten.

th 4 5 PRESENT : 6 7 RALPH K . W INTER, 8 JOSEPH M. McLAUG HLIN, 9 DEBRAANN LIVING STON, 10 Ci rcu it J ud ges. 11 12 13 GERALD PROPHE TE, 14 Plaintif f-Appellant , 15 16 v. 09 -21 03 -cv 17 Summ ary Or de r 18 NEW

YORK P OLICE DEPARTMENT, 19 De fen da nt- Ap pe lle e , 20 21 CITY OF NE W

YORK, 22 Defendant . 23 24 25 Gerald Prophete , pro s e , Brooklyn, NY, for 26 Plaintif f-Appellant . 27 28 Alan G. Krams, LawDepartm ent, The City of 29 New York, New York, NY, for De fen da nt30 Ap pe lle e . 31 322

1 UPON D UE CON SIDERATION , it is hereby ORDERED, A DJUDGED AND DE CREED 2 that the j udgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 3 Plaintiff-AppellantGerald Prophete , pro s e , ap pe als f rom th e Se pte m

be r 9 , 2 00 8 and

Ap ril 4 17 , 2 00 9 o rde rs and the Ap ril21 , 2 00 9 jud gm ent of the Un ite d S tat es D ist

ric t C ourt f

or t he Ea ste rn 5 Districtof New York (Gershon, J. ), di sm iss inghis 42 U.S .C . § 19 83 clai m s aga ins t the City of Ne w 6 York, and su a s

po nte dis m iss inghis § 1 98 3 c lai m s ag ain st O ff ice r Co rte s fo r fa ilure t o p ros ecute. 7 W e assume the parties ’ familiarity with the underlying fact s and procedura l history of the case. 8 W e review de novo a d istrict cou rt’ s d eci sio n to dis m iss a co m pla int fo r f ailure to s tat e a 9 cla im , takin g a ll fa ctu al all eg ati on s in the co m pla int as t rue an d d raw ingallrea so na

ble inf ere nc es 10 in favor of

the plaint iff. Ha rri

s v. M ill s , 572 F.3d 66, 71 (2d Cir. 2009) . Here, Prophete does not 11 ch al le ng e th e di stri ctcourt ’s dis mis sa l of his cla ims aga in stthe City of Ne w York, andtho se cl ai ms 12 are ther efore waived. See LoSacco v. City of Middlet own , 71 F.3d 88, 92-93 (2d Cir. 1995) ( “[W ]e 13 need not manufacture cl aims of error for an appellantproceeding pro s e , e sp eci all y whe n h e h as 14 raised an i ssue below and ele cted not to pur sue it on appea l.”). 15 Ins of

ar a s th e d istric t court di sm iss ed Pro ph ete ’s cl aim

agai ns t Of

fi cer Cor tes for fai lur e to 16 pro sec ute , w e co ns tru e th e d istric t co urt ’s o rde r as a dis m iss al f

or f ailure to s erv e. W e re vie w s uc h 17 dismissals for abuse of discre tion. Se e Z ap ata v. Ci ty o

f N ew Yo rk, 502 F.3d

19 2, 19 5 (2 d C ir. 18 2007). A distri ct court abuses its di screti on if it bases its ruling on an erroneous view of the law or 19 cle ar lyerr oneous findings of fact, or if its de cision “cannot be locat ed within the r ange of 20 pe rm iss ibl e d eci sio ns .” Ly nc h v. City of New Y or k, 5 89 F. 3d

94 , 9 9 (2 d C ir. 20 09 ) (i nte rna l 21 qu otatio n m ark s o m itt ed). F ed era l R ule of Ci vilPr oc ed

ure 4(m) pr ov ide s th at “ [i ]f a d ef en dant i s 22 no t se rve d w ith in 1 20 days af ter the co m pla int is f ile d, the co urt

— o n m oti on

or o n it s o wn

af ter3

1 no tic e to the pla int if f — m us t di sm iss the act ion

wi tho ut p rej ud ice ag ain st that de fe nd ant or ord er 2 that s erv ice b e m ad e wi thi n a sp eci fi ed ti m e. But i f the p lai nti ff s ho ws g oo d cau se fo r th e f ailure , 3 the co urt

m us t exten d th e ti m e f

or s erv ice for

an app rop riate pe rio d. ” We willnot ov err ule a d istric t 4 court’s di smissal for lack of service u nl es s th e appel lant “advanc e[s] som e colorabl e excuse for 5 ne gle ct. ” Za

pa ta , 502 F.3d at 198 (a ffi rming dis trictcourt’s di smissal under previous version of 6 Rule 4(m), wher e re cord s howed that plai ntiff had m ade no effort to effect servic e and had not 7 m ov ed

f or ane xte ns ion

w ith in a rea so nable time); see also Fe d R . C iv. P. 4(m) ad vis ory 8 committ ee ’s note ( noting thatchanges to Rule 4 under2007 Am endment were intended to be 9 stylist ic only). 10 W e fi nd

th at the d istric t c ourt did n ot ab us e its d isc ret ion

whe n it dis m issed Proph ete ’s 11 co m

pla int su a s

po nte fo r f

ailure to e ff

ect ser vic e u po n O ff ice r C ort es. Th e re co rd i nd icates that af ter 12 grantingPr op he te l eav e to ad d O ff ice r C ort es a s a d ef

en dant and

ex cu sin g P rop he te’ s f

ailure to 13 amend his complaint within the t ime permitted by its order , the distr ict courtgave Prophete 120 days 14 in which to serve Officer Cortes, and provi ded him noti ce that fail ure t o effect service, or t o show 15 good cause why s ervice could notbe effected, could result in a dismissal of his complaint. We find 16 no thi ngin t

he rec ord to s ug ge st that P rop he te m ad e any e ff ort to ef fect servic e, m ov ed

fo r an 17 exten sio n o f t im e to ser ve Of fi cer Co rte s, or de m on str ate d go od cau se f or f ailure to e ff

ect ser vic e. 18 In h is b rie f, Pr op hete ne ith er e xp lai ns any e ff ort he m ad e to ef

fe ct s erv ice , n or d oe s h e “a dv an ce 19 so m e co lor ab le e xc us e f or n eg lec t.” Za

pa ta , 502 F.3d at 198. 20 W e h av e co ns ide red allof Pr op he te’ s o the r ar gum ents and fi nd the m to b e w ith out m eri t. 21 For the reas ons stated above, the judgment of the distri ct court i s AFFIRMED. 22 23 FOR THECOURT : 24 Cathe rin e O ’H ag anW olf e, Cl erk 25 26