Case Name: Kevin L. PERRY, former postal employee, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John E. POTTER, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-11-15
Citations: 22 F. App'x 788
Docket Number: No. 01-55457; D.C. No. CV-99-00743-MLH
Parties: Kevin L. PERRY, former postal employee, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John E. POTTER, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 22
Pages: 788–788

Head Matter:
Kevin L. PERRY, former postal employee, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John E. POTTER, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 01-55457.
D.C. No. CV-99-00743-MLH.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 5, 2001 .
Decided Nov. 15, 2001.
Before KLEINFELD, McKEOWN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
John E. Potter is substituted for his predecessor in office pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Kevin L. Perry appeals pro se the district court's denial of his motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a Rule 60(b)(1) motion. United States v. $277,000 U.S. Currency, 69 F.3d 1491, 1492 (9th Cir.1995). The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Perry relief from judgment under Rule 60(b)(1) because Perry failed to show "excusable neglect" for his failure to timely serve the summons and complaint in compliance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m). See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993).
Perry's additional contentions lack merit.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.