* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### SEP 7 2000 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
BRUCE M. POLLOCK,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. VISTA VILLAGE MOBILE HOME PARK, c/o HARVEY J. MILLER, INC., Defendants-Appellees. No. 00-1008 (D.C. No. 97-N-2395) (D. Colo.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before BRORBY, PORFILIO, and MURPHY , Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. **See** Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). T he case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.-2-

Plaintiff, appearing **pro se** , filed suit in federal district court seeking revi ew of an amended determination of the Colorado Civil R ights Division, resulting from a complaint plaintiff filed with that agency. The complaint alleged that defendants denied plaintiff the opportunity to comp lete a sale of his mobile home because of the potential purchasers’ national origi n, in violation of state law. Plaintiff also sought monetary damages resulting fr om the loss of the sale. On the magistrate judge’s recommendation, the district cou rt dismissed the claim challenging the agency decision for lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction. With regard to the claim for monetary damages, the courtdetermined that plaintiff had stated a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 3605(a), but it fo und that the complaint was deficient as to the legal status and factual connec tions of the two possible defendants on that claim. Consequently, the distri ct court allowed plaintiff ten days to amend his complaint to identify the defenda nts against whom the claim was directed and to allege facts providing a basis for liability of those defendants under § 3605(a). Plaintiff did not amend his compl aint, and, as a result, the district court dismissed the remaining claim. On appeal, plaintiff takes issue with defendants’ f ailure to waive service under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d). Although it is difficu lt to grasp plaintiff’s argument, it is clear that he misunderstands the waiver of se rvice rule. Rule 4(d) merely provides a means by which a defendant can avoid bea ring the cost of service of-3-

the summons. The Rule provides that if a defendantdoes not waive service after a plaintiff has so requested in accordance with the Rule, the defendant shall then be responsible for the costs incurred in effecting service on him, unless the defendant can show good cause for not complying with the request for waiver of service. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(2) & (5). In any event, defendants did not challenge the vali dity of the service of the complaint. In fact, defendants state that they eff ectively waived any defect in service. There is simply no merit to the argument plaintiff presents on appeal. AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court

Wade Brorby Circuit Judge