Robert Singleton and Justin Olsen appeal from the district court’s 1 adverse grant of 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 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).

Finally, we note that “[district courts have broad discretion to set filing deadlines and enforce local rules.” Reasonovev v. St. Louis County, Mo., 447 F.3d 569, 579 (8th Cir. 2006). Singleton and Olsen moved for leave to amend their summary judgment response well after the completion of summary judgment briefing. The district court granted their motion, but as a sanction for the delay in seeking leave, it ordered Singleton and Olsen to pay any attorney’s fees incurred by the defendants in preparing an amended reply. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(f)(2) authorizes the district court to impose such a sanction, and Singleton and Olsen will not now *523 be heard to complain that the district court’s order somehow prejudiced them when they were granted leave to amend but chose not to do so.

The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.