With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm. 1. The district court did not err in dismissing Smillie’s third amended complaint, replacing John Does with named individual Defendants, as barred by the statute of limitations. There is no evidence in the record satisfying the requirements of relation back. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(c); Miguel v. Country Funding Corp., 309 F.3d 1161, 1165 (9th Cir.2002) (as amended). Smillie did not advance any relation back argument before the district court, and conceded as much at oral argument. By assuming relation back was automatic, Smillie offered no proof to trigger the provision and failed to show that Defendants were provided notice of the complaint and were not prejudiced by the amendment. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(c)(1)(C); Miguel, 309 F.3d at 1165 (<HOLDING>). The district court, therefore, did not err in

A: holding that as a matter of law claim stated in amended complaint did not relate back to original complaint
B: holding that plaintiffs amended complaint could not relate back because there was no evidence in the record that the defendant had notice of the suit within the 120 day period required by rule 4m
C: holding that the amended complaint could not relate back to the original complaint in which all claims were barred by the statute of limitations
D: holding that because the plaintiff had not perfected service within 120 days of filing the complaint the complaint was subject to mandatory dismissal
B.