Case Name: Terry L. JEFFERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SEATTLE PARKS DEPT., Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-01-07
Citations: 408 F. App'x 48
Docket Number: No. 09-35854
Parties: Terry L. JEFFERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SEATTLE PARKS DEPT., Defendant—Appellee.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 408
Pages: 48–49

Head Matter:
Terry L. JEFFERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SEATTLE PARKS DEPT., Defendant—Appellee.
No. 09-35854.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 14, 2010.
Filed Jan. 7, 2011.
Terry L. Jefferson, Seattle, WA, pro se.
Fritz E. Wollett, Seattle City Attorney’s Office, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Terry L. Jefferson appeals pro se from the district court's order dismissing his employment discrimination complaint for failure to serve the summons and complaint in a timely manner. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Oyama v. Sheehan (In re Sheehan), 253 F.3d 507, 511 (9th Cir.2001). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the action without prejudice to refiling because Jefferson failed properly to serve a summons and complaint on the defendant even after receiving several extensions of time for effecting service, see Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(c)(2) & 4(m), or to show good cause for this failure, see In re Sheehan, 253 F.3d at 512; Townsel v. Cnty of Contra Costa, 820 F.2d 319, 320 (9th Cir.1987) (ignorance does not constitute good cause).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Jefferson's motion for appointment of counsel because he failed to establish exceptional circumstances. See Agyeman v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir.2004) (setting forth standard of review and requirements for appointment of counsel).
Jefferson's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.