Opinion
No. 1:19-cv-00898-DAD-SAB
05-07-2020
WAN TING LONG et al., Plaintiffs, v. ERIC MCAFEE, et al., Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING ACTION DUE TO PLAINTIFFS' FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDERS AND SERVE DEFENDANTS
(Doc. No. 26)
On July 1, 2019, plaintiffs Wan Ting Long and Xuejun Makhsous (collectively, "plaintiffs"), proceeding pro se, filed this civil action against several defendants alleging claims for fraud, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duties, and violations of the Federal Securities and Exchange Act. (Doc. No. 1.) This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On March 19, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that this action be dismissed due to plaintiffs' failure to comply with court orders and failure to serve the defendants in compliance with Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. No. 26.) The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within twenty-one (21) days after ///// service. (Id. at 20.) On April 16, 2020, plaintiffs filed objections to the pending findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 27.)
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiffs' objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis.
In their objections, plaintiffs primarily restate the same arguments and refer to the same exhibits that have already been addressed in the pending findings and recommendations and in the orders granting plaintiffs' multiple requests for extensions of time to prove service of process and providing plaintiffs with extensive guidance on the service requirements under Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. No. 27.) Though plaintiffs assert a few new arguments—that the current COVID-19 health emergency will make future service difficult, that service by publication should be allowed, and that defendants are evading service—none of these arguments meaningfully refute the magistrate judge's findings or explain why plaintiffs have repeatedly failed to comply with the court's orders and failed to properly serve defendants as required under Rule 4(m).
Accordingly,
1. The findings and recommendations issued on March 19, 2020 (Doc. No. 26) are adopted in full;IT IS SO ORDERED.
2. This action is dismissed, without prejudice, due to plaintiff's failure to serve the defendants in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), and failure to comply with court orders; and
3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.
Dated: May 7 , 2020
/s/_________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE