
    George BARTZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jan ADRIAN, Chief, Military Star Contact Center, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 05-10566.
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided Feb. 23, 2006.
    George Bartz, Airway Heights, WA, pro se.
    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. FedR.CivP. 4(m). This court 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 plaintiffs 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. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     