F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

JUL 23 1997

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

SAMUEL J. WILDER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

vs.

PEGGY KNIGHT; MAE ALICE WARD,

Eastern Stars; KENNETH KING, dba

Finch Investments; OMAR R. FINCH;

TULSA COUNTY BOARD OF

COUNTY COMMISSIONERS; DAVID

L. PETERSON, District Judge; CURTIS

ECKWOOD, dba Eckwood Enterprises;

CELESTER PETTY; RICHARD

RAVITS, attorney; STANLEY GLANZ,

sheriff; RONALD SHAFFER, District

Judge; LINDA REDWINE, Tulsa CityCounty Health Department; VERETTA

CARTER, Neighborhood Housing

Services of Tulsa; SARAH HAWXBY,

Oklahoma Human Rights Commission;

LESLIE PEPPER, Oklahoma Corporation

Commission; JOHN SHARP, Oklahoma

Natural Gas Company; W. HIDDLE,

Judge; DOUG DODD, Public Service Co.

of Oklahoma; CARLOS J. CHAPPELLE,

attorney,

Defendants - Appellees.

No. 96-5171

(D.C. No. 95-CV-1130)

(N.D. Okla.)
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This court generally disfavors the

citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under

the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

** After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge panel has

determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material assistance in the

determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

- 2 -

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before BRORBY, EBEL, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.**

Mr. Wilder, appearing pro se and in forma pauperis, appeals from the dismissal of

his civil rights action without prejudice for failure to effect service. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). 

We review the dismissal for an abuse of discretion. Espinosa v. United States, 52 F.3d

838, 841 (10th Cir. 1995).

Mr. Wilder filed his complaint on November 13, 1995. He was granted leave to

file the action without prepayment of fees or costs, with any further proceedings requiring

the specific authorization of the district court. I R. doc. 2. The district court entered its

order of dismissal on June 20, 1996.

Under Rule 4(m) and Espinosa, a plaintiff is entitled to a mandatory extension of

time to serve for good cause shown, and a permissive extension in the absence of good

cause. 52 F.3d at 841. Although the district court did not elaborate on its reasoning, no
- 3 -

good cause appears in the record. In his brief on appeal, Mr. Wilder contends that he

completed summonses for each defendant, as well as forms for marshal service and

entrusted the clerk to forward the latter to the marshal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). He also

contends that he attempted to serve one defendant by mail, although it is apparent that it

was not in compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d). Despite the lack of returns of service,

the record reveals no further attempt at service, nor any attempt to bring the problem to

the attention of the district court. Under the circumstances of the case, the district court

did not abuse its discretion.

AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court

Paul J. Kelly, Jr.

Circuit Judge