context: The court further declines to exercise its discretion, which it believes it possesses under Rule 4(m), to extend the time allowed for service of process, notwithstanding the fact that Mr. Hammad may be barred by the applicable statutes of limitations from reinsti-tuting his case following its dismissal.
citation_a.signal: cf.
citation_a.identifier: 45 F.3d 78, 78
citation_a.parenthetical: "Rule 4(j) [now Rule 4(m) ] does not ... give the appellant a right to refile without the consequence of time defenses, such as the statute of limitations"
citation_a.sentence: See Boley, supra, 123 F.3d at 759 (“The district court, of course, retains discretion to refuse to extend time, even if the statute of limitations has run”); cf. Mendez, 45 F.3d at 78 (“Rule 4(j) [now Rule 4(m) ] does not ... give the appellant a right to refile without the consequence of time defenses, such as the statute of limitations”). Accordingly, Mr. Hammad’s complaint will be dismissed without prejudice as provided by Rule 4(m).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 123 F.3d 759, 759
citation_b.parenthetical: "The district court, of course, retains discretion to refuse to extend time, even if the statute of limitations has run"
citation_b.sentence: See Boley, supra, 123 F.3d at 759 (“The district court, of course, retains discretion to refuse to extend time, even if the statute of limitations has run”); cf. Mendez, 45 F.3d at 78 (“Rule 4(j) [now Rule 4(m) ] does not ... give the appellant a right to refile without the consequence of time defenses, such as the statute of limitations”). Accordingly, Mr. Hammad’s complaint will be dismissed without prejudice as provided by Rule 4(m).