NOT RECOMMENDED F OR F ULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Na me: 13a0524n.06 No. 12-5404 UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS F OR THE S IXTH CIRCUIT KI MBERL Y WAL KER, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. UNI TED STATES POSTAL SERVI CE, Post Master G ener al, Patrick Dona hoe, Def endant- Appellee

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE E ASTERN DI STRI CT OF KE NTUCKY

BEF ORE: SI L ER, CL AY, and G I BB ONS, Circuit J udg es.

PER CURI AM. Kimberly Walker appea ls the district court’s order deny ing her motion for relief from the or der dismissing he r civil complaint without prejudice. I n May 2011, Walker, an em p l o y ee of the United States Postal Service , filed a complaint ag ains t t he Postm aster Gene ral in his officia l capa city , alleg ing claims of workplac e hara ssment, discrimination, a

nd reta liation. Walker soug ht mone tary relief

. I n J anuar

y 2012, the district c ourt order ed Walker to show cause for her failure to eff ect proper service of proce ss in acc ordanc e with Fe dera l Rule of Civil Procedur e 4(i). I n response , Walker moved for a defa ult judgme nt, asser

ting that sh e h ad p ro p er l y serve d the defe ndant. I n Fe bruar y 2012, the district court dismiss ed the complaint without prejudice , concluding that, although W alker had served the defe ndant, s he had failed to e ither ser

ve the United States in a ccor dance with Rule 4(i)(1) or demonstrate g ood causeNo. 12-5404

W alker v . U.S. Postal Serv. to e x cuse her failure to do so. Walker moved under Fe dera l Rules of Civil Procedur e 4, 15, 59(e) , 60(b), and 61 for relief from the order dismiss ing her complaint and for an extension of time to eff ect proper service . The district cour t denied the motion. On appea l, Walker arg ues that the district court abu s ed i t s d i scre tion by dismiss ing her complaint and deny

ing he r an e x tension of time to serve the United States bec ause she had ser ved the defe ndant and it would not be prejudice d by the extension. Walker’s appea l from the denial of her Rule 59(e) motion is trea ted as an appea l from the underly ing order dismiss ing her complaint. See Bonner v. Metro. Life Ins. Co. , 621 F.3d 530, 532 (6th Cir. 2010)

. We revie w the dismiss al of Walker’s complaint for an abuse of discretion. See Habib v. Gen. Motors Corp. , 15 F.3d 72, 73 (6th Cir. 1994). Where, as here , a plaintiff is suing a United States office r or employ ee in his or her officia l capa city , the pl aintiff mus t serve both the Unit ed S tates and the off i ce r o r em p l o y ee. See Fe d. R. Civ. P. 4(i)(2)

. To eff

ect service on the United States, a plaintiff must serve both the United States Attorney for the district wher e the action is brou gh t an d t h e Attorney Gene ral. Fe d. R. Civ. P. 4(i)(1)

. I f a plaintiff has not completed service within 120 day s of filing the complaint, the district court must dismiss the action or order th at service be made within a specifie d time, unless the plaintiff demonstrates g ood cause for failing to eff ect service , in which case the district court must extend the time for servic e for an appr opriate pe riod. Fe d. R. Civ. P . 4(m). The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismiss ing Walker’s co m p l ai n t without preju d i ce an d d en y ing her reque st for an extension of time to complete service

. Walker failed to eff ect service on both the Attorney Gene ral and the United States Attorney as require d by Rule 4(i), -2-No. 12-5404

W alker v . U.S. Postal Serv. despite the fac t that her complaint was pending in the district court for over nine months and a

summons was issued for the United States Attorney in October 2011. Fur ther, Walker g ave no valid

rea son to explain her failure to complete serv i ce , an d s h e did not reque st an extension of time to eff ect service until afte r her complaint was dism issed. Under the circ umstances, the district c ourt could rea sonably conclude that Walker had been g iven a sufficie nt opportunity to complete service , that she had not established g ood cause to excuse her failure to do so, and that an extension of time was not wa

rra nted. See H

ill v. Rhodes, Inc

. , 39 F. App’ x 246, 247 (6th Cir. 2002). Acc ording ly , we a ffirm the district c ourt’s orde r.

-3-