Filed: Apr. 09, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 99-1762 _ Matthew Joseph Sikora, Jr., * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the District * of Nebraska. Internal Revenue Service; Commissioner * of Internal Revenue Service; Nebraska * [UNPUBLISHED] Department of Revenue, * * Appellees. * _ Submitted: April 7, 1999 Filed: April 9, 1999 _ Before FAGG, HANSEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Matthew Joseph Sikora, Jr. appeals th
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 99-1762 _ Matthew Joseph Sikora, Jr., * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the District * of Nebraska. Internal Revenue Service; Commissioner * of Internal Revenue Service; Nebraska * [UNPUBLISHED] Department of Revenue, * * Appellees. * _ Submitted: April 7, 1999 Filed: April 9, 1999 _ Before FAGG, HANSEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Matthew Joseph Sikora, Jr. appeals the..
More
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 99-1762
___________
Matthew Joseph Sikora, Jr., *
*
Appellant, *
* Appeal from the United States
v. * District Court for the District
* of Nebraska.
Internal Revenue Service; Commissioner *
of Internal Revenue Service; Nebraska * [UNPUBLISHED]
Department of Revenue, *
*
Appellees. *
___________
Submitted: April 7, 1999
Filed: April 9, 1999
___________
Before FAGG, HANSEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
Matthew Joseph Sikora, Jr. appeals the dismissal without prejudice of his
complaint for failure to effect proper service of process within 120 days under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). We conclude the district court did not abuse its
discretion. Although over 120 days passed after Sikora filed his complaint, and the
court gave Sikora an extension of time to effect proper service, see Bullock v. United
States,
160 F.3d 441, 442 (8th Cir. 1998) (per curiam); Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(a)-(c), 4(i),
4(m), Sikora failed to show good cause for his continuing failure to effect service, see
Lujano v. Omaha Pub. Power Dist.,
30 F.3d 1032, 1035 (8th Cir. 1994). Accordingly,
we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47A(a).
A true copy.
Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
-2-