Case Name: Barry NNANNA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Tom STANLEY, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-09-19
Citations: 46 F. App'x 550
Docket Number: No. 01-57164; D.C. No. CY-00-09395-RSWL
Parties: Barry NNANNA, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Tom STANLEY, Defendant—Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 46
Pages: 550–550

Head Matter:
Barry NNANNA, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Tom STANLEY, Defendant—Appellee.
No. 01-57164.
D.C. No. CY-00-09395-RSWL.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 9, 2002.
Decided Sept. 19, 2002.
Before HUG, O’SCANNLAIN, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Barry Nnanna appeals pro se the district court's dismissal without prejudice of his attorney malpractice action for failure to timely serve the defendant with a summons and complaint under Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion, West Coast Theater Corp. v. Portland, 897 F.2d 1519, 1528 (9th Cir. 1990), and affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed Nnanna's action because he served his former attorney by mail and did not obtain a signed acknowledgment, as is required by California law. See Barlow v. Ground, 39 F.3d 231, 234 (9th Cir.1994).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.