Zhang v. Bitfeifan Technology Co, Inc. et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
H AOYING Z HANG 	§
Plaintiff, 	§
§
v. 	§ 	CIVIL A CTION N O. 4:25-cv-04468
§
BITFEIFAN T ECHNOLOGY CO., I NC., 	§
ET AL., 	§
Defendants. 	§
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff filed his Complaint (ECF 1) on September 11, 2025, and his deadline
to serve Defendants was December 10, 2025. 	See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c), (m).1 	On
December 29, 2025, the Court ordered Plaintiff to effect service by January 23, 2026,
and warned that the Magistrate Judge would recommend the District Judge dismiss
the case without prejudice for failure to do so. ECF 5. 	See also Drgac v. Treon,
No. CIV.A. H-07- 4283, 2008 WL 4746984, at *1 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 27, 2008)
(explaining that pro se plaintiffs are entitled to notice before a court dismisses an
action sua sponte for failure to serve defendants) (citing Lindsey v. U.S. R.R.
Retirement Bd., 101 F.3d 444, 446 (5th Cir.1996)); Kersh v. Derozier, 851 F.2d
1509, 1512 (5th Cir. 1988) (noting that pro se plaintiff’s ignorance of the law does
1 The District Judge referred this case to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(A) and (B), the Cost and Delay Reduction Plan under the Civil Justice Reform Act,
and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72. ECF 4.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
January 28, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-04468 Document 6 Filed 01/27/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 2

2
not excuse compliance with rules regarding service). 	Plaintiff has failed to serve
Defendants.
For the reasons stated above, the Court RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s
claims be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to effect service.
The 	Clerk 	of 	the 	Court 	shall 	send 	copies 	of 	the 	memorandum 	and
recommendation to the respective parties, who will then have fourteen days to file
written objections, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 	Failure to file written
objections within the time period provided will bar an aggrieved party from attacking
the factual findings and legal conclusions on appeal. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto.
Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded by statute on
other grounds.
Christina A. Bryan
United States Magistrate Judge
Signed on January 27, 2026, at Houston, Texas.
Case 4:25-cv-04468 Document 6 Filed 01/27/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2