Bartz v. Adrian

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
February 23, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-10566
Conference Calendar
GEORGE BARTZ,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JAN ADRIAN, Chief, Military Star Contact Center,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:04-CV-1081
--------------------
Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
George Bartz, Washington inmate # 985210, proceeding pro se,
appeals from the dismissal, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 4(m), of his claims against the defendant. Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) provides that if service is not made
within 120 days of filing the complaint, the action is subject to
dismissal without prejudice by the district court after notice to
the plaintiff, unless the plaintiff can show good cause for his
failure to complete service. FED. R. CIV. P. 4(m). This court

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 05-10566
-2-
reviews for an abuse of discretion a district court’s dismissal
for failure to effect timely service. See Systems Signs Supplies
v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 903 F.2d 1011, 1013 (5th Cir.
1990).
Bartz asserts that his failure to effect service of process
should be excused because of his pro se status and because
dismissal of his complaint violates his right to due process.
Pro se status and ignorance of the relevant rules of service do
not excuse a plaintiff’s failure to effect service. Kersh v.
Derozier, 851 F.2d 1509, 1512 (5th Cir. 1988). Additionally, the
district court informed Bartz of the service of process
requirements contained in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4.
As for Bartz’s contention that the dismissal of his
complaint violates his due process rights, the district court
dismissed Bartz’s complaint without prejudice, and Bartz does not
argue that a subsequent suit would be time-barred. Therefore,
due process is not implicated.
Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --