Case Name: Amen E. IDUMWONYI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CONVERGYS, District Court of Appeals, Hubbard House, Duval County Court, State of Florida, et al., Defendants-Appellees, Duval County Courthouse, et al., Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-08-04
Citations: 611 F. App'x 667
Docket Number: No. 14-12619
Parties: Amen E. IDUMWONYI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CONVERGYS, District Court of Appeals, Hubbard House, Duval County Court, State of Florida, et al., Defendants-Appellees, Duval County Courthouse, et al., Defendants.
Judges: Before HULL, ROSENBAUM and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 611
Pages: 667–667

Head Matter:
Amen E. IDUMWONYI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CONVERGYS, District Court of Appeals, Hubbard House, Duval County Court, State of Florida, et al., Defendants-Appellees, Duval County Courthouse, et al., Defendants.
No. 14-12619
Non-Argument Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
Aug. 4, 2015.
Amen E. Idumwonyi, Jacksonville, FL, pro se.
Arthur Lee Bentley, III, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Tampa, FL, for Defendant-Appel-lee, District Court of Appeals.
Pam Bondi, Attorney General’s Office, Jacksonville, FL, for Defendant, Duval County Courthouse.
Before HULL, ROSENBAUM and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Amen Idumwonyi, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court's dismissal of his case without prejudice because, despite the court's warning, he failed to perfect service upon the defendants "within 120 days after the complaint is filed" as required by Fed. R.Civ.P. 4(m). Upon review, we hold the district court did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed Idumwonyi's case without prejudice for failing to perfect service pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. (4)(m). See Rance v. Rocksolid Granit USA, Inc., 583 F.3d 1284, 1286 (11th Cir.2009) (reviewing sua sponte dismissal of complaint for failure to serve under Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m) for abuse of discretion); see also Albra v. Advan, Inc., 490 F.3d 826, 829 (11th Cir.2007) ("[Although we . give liberal construction to the pleadings of pro se litigants, we nevertheless . require them to conform to procedural rules.").
Rule 4(m) provides, "If a defendant is not served within 120 days after the complaint is filed, the court — on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff — must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time" unless "the plaintiff shows good cause." Fed.R.Civ.P. (4)(m). If the plaintiff cannot show good cause, the district court still has discretion to extend the deadline for serving process if doing so is warranted by other circumstances. See Lepone-Dempsey v. Carroll County Com'rs, 476 F.3d 1277, 1282 (11th Cir.2007). In this case, however, Idumwonyi has not shown good cause for failing to serve the defendants within the time allowed by Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m), and no other circumstances warrant an extension of time. See id. at 1281 ("Good cause exists only when some outside factor, such as reliance on faulty advice, rather than inadvertence or negligence, prevented service." (alteration and quotations omitted)). Accordingly, the district court's judgment is AFFIRMED.