Case Name: Kenneth B. QUANSAH, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEL CORONADO APARTMENTS; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-12-26
Citations: 708 F. App'x 400
Docket Number: No. 17-16244
Parties: Kenneth B. QUANSAH, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEL CORONADO APARTMENTS; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 708
Pages: 400–400

Head Matter:
Kenneth B. QUANSAH, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEL CORONADO APARTMENTS; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-16244
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted December 18, 2017
Filed December 26, 2017
Kenneth B. Quansah, Jr., Pro Se
Matthew Gregory Geisick, Law Offices of John H. Coward, Los Gatos, CA, for Defendants-Appellees
Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, 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
Kenneth B. Quansah, Jr. appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his action for failure to effect proper service of the summons and complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). 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), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Quansah's action because Quansah failed to effect proper service of the summons and complaint and did not demonstrate good cause for failing to serve properly, despite being given notice and an opportunity to do so. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) (outlining requirements for proper service, and explaining that district court may dismiss, an action for failure to serve "after notice to the plaintiff'); In re Sheehan, 253 F.3d at 512 (discussing Rule 4(m)'s "good cause" standard).
Quansah's request for attorney's fees, set forth in his opening brief, is denied.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.