Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00898/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00898-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WAN TING LONG et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ERIC MCAFEE, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:19-cv-00898-DAD-SAB

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

/////

Case 1:19-cv-00898-DAD-SAB Document 28 Filed 05/08/20 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

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;

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.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 7, 2020 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-00898-DAD-SAB Document 28 Filed 05/08/20 Page 2 of 2