Craig Buck v. Boeing Company

103 F.3d 137 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Craig BUCK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BOEING COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. No. 96-35215. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Dec. 2, 1996. * Decided Dec. 06, 1996. Before: SNEED, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Craig Buck appeals pro se the district court's dismissal without prejudice of his action against his former employer, Boeing Company, based on Buck's failure to properly effect service of process pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm. 3 Buck contends that Boeing had actual notice of his action because it answered the complaint and received case schedules from the King County (Washington) Superior Court and federal district court, therefore, the district court erred in dismissing based on his failure to serve a summons on Boeing within 120 days as provided in Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m). Prior to removal of the action to…