Willoughby
Willoughby v. Dennison
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Bailey Willoughby, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court’s summary judgment in favor of defendants Dennison, Saxon, and Haggerty in Wil-loughby’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that Saxon violated his civil rights by arresting him for a suspected parole violation, that Haggerty violated his right to due process when he found probable cause to believe that a parole violation had occurred in a preliminary parole revocation hearing, and Dennison violated Willough-by’s civil rights by issuing a retake warrant. Willoughby also appeals the district court’s order, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m), dismissing the remaining defendants for failure to effect timely service. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.
We review de novo the district court’s summary judgment, Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir.1998), and for abuse of discretion the dismissal without prejudice for failure to timely serve a summons and complaint, Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir.1994), abrogated on other grounds by Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 , 115 S.Ct. 2293 , 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995).