
    Brian FRANKENBERGER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FIRTH RIXSON, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 13-2712-cv.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    May 9, 2014.
    Brian Frankenberger, Rochester, N.Y., for Appellant.
    Margaret A. Clemens, Taren Nicole Greenidge, and Jacqueline Phipps Polito, Littler Mendelson, P.C., Rochester, N.Y., for Appellee.
    Present: ROSEMARY S. POOLER, REENA RAGGI and RICHARD C. WESLEY, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Brian Frankenberger, proceeding pro se, appeals from a June 10, 2013 decision and order of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York (Telesca, J.) dismissing his complaint on account of his failure to effect service on the defendant. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

We review dismissals under Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to timely serve process for abuse of discretion. See Gerena v. Korb, 617 F.3d 197, 201 (2d Cir.2010). A district court abuses its discretion if it bases its ruling on an erroneous view of the law or clearly erroneous findings of fact, or if its decision “cannot be located within the range of permissible decisions.” Lynch v. City of N.Y., 589 F.3d 94, 99 (2d Cir.2009) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Pursuant to Rule 4(m):

If a defendant is not served within 120 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 or order that service be made within a specified time. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period.

A district court also has discretion to enlarge the 120-day period for service, even in the absence of good cause. See Zapata v. City of N.Y., 502 F.3d 192, 196 (2d Cir.2007). Ordinarily, we will not overrule a district court’s dismissal for lack of service unless the appellant “advance[s] some colorable excuse for neglect.” Id. at 198.

We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Frankenberger’s complaint, based on its conclusion that he had not been diligent in his efforts to effect service in a timely manner. We affirm for substantially the same reasons set forth by the district court in its thorough and well-reasoned order.

We have considered Frankenberger’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court hereby is AFFIRMED.  