
    Vincent Paul MELENDREZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael COMPSTON; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 17-35416
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted December 18, 2017 
    
    Filed December 21, 2017
    Vincent Paul Melendrez, Pro Se
    Richard L. Anderson, Esquire, .King County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office, Seattle, WA, for Defendants-Appellees
    Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Washington state prisoner Vincent Paul Melendrez appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.C.S. § 1983 action alleging claims arising from an assault by another inmate during Me-lendrez’s pretrial detention. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, We review de novo. FTC v. Stefanchik, 559 F.3d 924, 927 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Melendrez failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants placed Melen-drez at a substantial risk of serious harm. See Castro v. County of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060, 1067-71 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (elements of a failure-to-protect claim under the Fourteenth Amendment).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the action for lack of jurisdiction against defendant John Caster because Melendrez failed to show good cause for the failure to serve Caster after two attempts by the U.S. Marshals Service. See Puett v. Blandford, 912 F.2d 270, 275 (9th Cir. 1990) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that a prisoner “proceeding in forma pauperis is entitled to rely on the U.S. Marshal for service” as long as he or she “provide[s] the necessary-information to help effectuate service”).

We reject as without merit Melendrez’s contention that his due process rights were violated by the district court’s consideration of defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     