Opinion ID: 4532015
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Failure to Serve

Text: We review a dismissal for failure to serve under Federal Rule of Civil 5 Procedure 4(m) for abuse of discretion. Gerena v. Korb, 617 F.3d 197, 201 (2d Cir. 2010). Here, Nguedi’s sole argument concerning the dismissal of the three named officers for lack of service is that he was waiting to serve them until the City identified all nine officers that Nguedi originally alleged participated in the illegal arrest. This contention is meritless. To be sure, Nguedi previously requested that the City provide him with the identities of the nine officers pursuant to Valentin v. Dinkins, 121 F.3d 72, 76 (2d Cir. 1997). But after the City represented that it could only identify three officers who matched the descriptions provided by Nguedi, the magistrate judge ruled that the City had complied with its obligations under Valentin and need not conduct a further search. Because Nguedi did not appeal that ruling to the district court, he has waived his right to object to it now. See Caidor v. Onondaga County, 517 F.3d 601, 604–05 (2d Cir. 2008). Given the magistrate judge’s order that the City was not required to make further efforts to identify the additional officers, we find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s dismissal of Nguedi’s claims for failure to serve the three identified ones.