
    Harold Brian KRIEG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Richard Gregory CRAIN, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 12-17585.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 10, 2014.
    
    Filed March 18, 2014.
    Harold Brian Krieg, Las Vegas, NV, pro se.
    Before: PREGERSON, LEAVY, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Harold Brian Krieg appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing for failure to effect timely service his action challenging an unfavorable Nevada state court judgment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion, Oyama v. Sheehan (In re Sheehan), 253 F.3d 507, 511 (9th Cir.2001), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Krieg’s action because Krieg failed to establish good cause for his failure to effect timely service of the summons and complaint on defendant. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m) (requiring service within 120 days after the complaint is filed); In re Sheehan, 253 F.3d at 512-13 (explaining that courts may dismiss an action without prejudice for defective or untimely service, absent a showing of good cause, and discussing the requirements for a showing of good cause).

Moreover, dismissal of Krieg’s action was proper because federal courts lack jurisdiction over de facto appeals from state court judgments. See Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir.2003) (setting forth standard of review); see also Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284, 125 S.Ct. 1517, 161 L.Ed.2d 454 (2005) (the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars “state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments” from seeking federal review of those judgments).

Krieg’s contentions regarding his timely service in the prior state court action; defendant’s alleged attempts to dodge service and failure to appear in the prior action; the district court’s alleged improper motives for dismissing the underlying action; and the merits of his underlying claims are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     