summary judgment on their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against the City of Lake Ozark, Missouri, Wally Schrock, Robert Ashford, and Michael Luby. Having reviewed the record de 'aovo and considered the arguments raised by the appellants, we conclude that the district court’s order contains no error of fact or law and thus should be affirmed. Singleton and Olsen also appeal from the dismissal without prejudice of Rudy Rodriguez, whom they failed to serve within 120 days after filing the complaint. The district court put Singleton and Olsen on notice that the complaint was subject to dismissal and properly exercised its discretion when it sua sponte dismissed the complaint without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). See Norsyn, Inc. v. Desai, 351 F.3d 825, 830-31 (8th Cir.2003)(<HOLDING>). Finally, we note that “[district courts have
holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed the case without prejudice because the plaintiff failed to properly serve the defendant within 120 days after filing the complaint holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing a complaint with prejudice based on the plaintiffs failure to amend the complaint by the deadline imposed by the court holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to strike when movant failed to show prejudice holding that because the plaintiff had not perfected service within 120 days of filing the complaint the complaint was subject to mandatory dismissal holding that the statutory requirement that a defendant serve any apportionment complaint within 120 days of the return date of the original complaint is mandatory and implicates a courts personal jurisdiction