
    Jamaal GITTENS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. EQUIFAX, Defendant-Appellee, and TransUnion, Defendant.
    No. 16-2256
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: April 20, 2017
    Decided: May 1, 2017
    Jamaal Gittens, Appellant Pro Se.
    Before WILKINSON and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jamaal Gittens appeals from the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his action in which he alleged that Equifax failed to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation of disputed information on his credit report. The district court sua sponte dismissed the action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m), after finding that Gittens failed to effect service upon Equifax within 90 days of the filing of the complaint.

Rule 4(m) provides: “If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant.” Fed. R. Civ. P, 4(m). “As indicated by the plain language of Rule 4(m), notice to the plaintiff must be given prior to a sua sponte dismissal.” Thompson v. Maldonado, 309 F.3d 107, 110 (2d Cir. 2002). Here, the court dismissed the action for failure to timely effect service upon Equifax, but failed to provide notice to Gittens prior to the dismissal. For this reason, we vacate,the dismissal order and remand to the district court for further proceedings. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

VACATED AND REMANDED  