22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T48a,•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 36-3.24:T4bc,

•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.