Maurice Coleman appeals the district court’s 1 order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. We affirm.

After Coleman filed his complaint, the district court issued an order explaining that summons forms would be sent to Coleman for completion, that he needed to return the completed forms so that the United States Marshal’s Office could serve defendants, and that Coleman had 120 days to effectuate service. The court dismissed the complaint only after Coleman failed to provide the required forms as directed. Further, the dismissal was without prejudice. In these circumstances, we find no abuse of discretion. See Fed. R.Civ.P. 41(b), 4(m); Lee v. Armontrout, 991 F.2d 487, 489 (8th Cir. 1993) (per curiam) (inmate proceeding IFP is still responsible for providing address for service on defendants); Smith v. Gold Dust Casino, 526 F.3d 402, 404-05 (8th Cir. 2008) (standard of review for Rule 41(b) dismissals); Bullock v. United States, 160 F.3d 441, 442 (8th Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (standard of review for Rule 4(m) dismissals).

Accordingly, we affirm.