Davidson

MEMORANDUM **

John Davidson appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in favor of defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging defendants conspired to wrongfully arrest him and subject him to trial. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo both a district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim and summary judgment. Barnett v. Centoni 31 F.3d 813, 815-16 (9th Cir.1994) (per curiam). We review for abuse of discretion the dismissal for failure to properly serve a defendant under Fed. R.Civ.P. 4., Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir.1994), and the “decision to reconsider an interlocutory order by another judge of the same court.” Delta Sav. Bank v. United States, 265 F.3d 1017 , 1027 (9th Cir.2001). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the action against the City of Phoenix without prejudice to refiling, because Davidson did not properly serve a summons and complaint on this defendant within 120 days. See Fed. R.Civ.P. 4(m); Oyama v. Sheehan (In re Sheehan), 253 F.3d 507, 511 (9th Cir.2001).

The district court properly dismissed Davidson’s conspiracy claim because conclusory…