Haoying Zhang v. Bitfeifan Technology Co, Inc, et al

S.D. Texas

Haoying Zhang v. Bitfeifan Technology Co, Inc, et al

District Court, S.D. Texas·Decided February 23, 2026·No. 4:25-cv-04468·Unknown

Opinion

February 25, 2026 Nathan Ochsner, Clerk UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION

HAOYING ZHANG, § CIVIL ACTION NUMBER Plaintiff, § 4:25-cv-04468 § § versus § JUDGE CHARLES ESKRIDGE § § BITFEIFAN TECHNOLOGY § CO, INC, et al, § Defendants. § ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION Plaintiff Haoying Zhang filed a complaint seeking damages and injunctive relief for alleged employment discrimination and retaliation on September 11, 2025. Dkt 1. After failing to timely serve Defendants, Plaintiff was ordered to effect service by January 23, 2026. Dkt 5. He was warned that failure to do so would result in dismissal without prejudice. Ibid. Pending is a Memorandum and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge Christina A. Bryan, recommending that this case be dismissed without prejudice for failure to serve Defendants, despite court order to do so. Dkt 6. The district court reviews de novo those conclusions of a magistrate judge to which a party has specifically objected. See FRCP 72(b)(3) & 28 USC § 636(b)(1)(C); see also United States v Wilson, 864 F2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir 1989, per curiam). The district court may accept any other portions to which there’s no objection if satisfied that no clear error appears on the face of the record. See Guillory v PPG Industries Inc, 434 F3d 303, 308 (5th Cir 2005), citing Douglass v United Services Automobile Association, 79 F3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir 1996, en banc); see also FRCP 72(b) advisory committee note (1983). None of the parties filed objections. No clear error otherwise appears upon review and consideration of the Memorandum and Recommendation, the record, and the applicable law. The Memorandum and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED as the Memorandum and Order of this Court. Dkt 6. This case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. A final judgment will issue by separate order. SO ORDERED. Signed on February 23, 2026, at Houston, Texas.

orbbleCUharles Eskridge United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

February 25, 2026 Nathan Ochsner, Clerk UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION

HAOYING ZHANG, § CIVIL ACTION NUMBER Plaintiff, § 4:25-cv-04468 § § versus § JUDGE CHARLES ESKRIDGE § § BITFEIFAN TECHNOLOGY § CO, INC, et al, § Defendants. § ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION Plaintiff Haoying Zhang filed a complaint seeking damages and injunctive relief for alleged employment discrimination and retaliation on September 11, 2025. Dkt 1. After failing to timely serve Defendants, Plaintiff was ordered to effect service by January 23, 2026. Dkt 5. He was warned that failure to do so would result in dismissal without prejudice. Ibid. Pending is a Memorandum and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge Christina A. Bryan, recommending that this case be dismissed without prejudice for failure to serve Defendants, despite court order to do so. Dkt 6. The district court reviews de novo those conclusions of a magistrate judge to which a party has specifically objected. See FRCP 72(b)(3) & 28 USC § 636(b)(1)(C); see also United States v Wilson, 864 F2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir 1989, per curiam). The district court may accept any other portions to which there’s no objection if satisfied that no clear error appears on the face of the record. See Guillory v PPG Industries Inc, 434 F3d 303, 308 (5th Cir 2005), citing Douglass v United Services Automobile Association, 79 F3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir 1996, en banc); see also FRCP 72(b) advisory committee note (1983). None of the parties filed objections. No clear error otherwise appears upon review and consideration of the Memorandum and Recommendation, the record, and the applicable law. The Memorandum and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED as the Memorandum and Order of this Court. Dkt 6. This case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. A final judgment will issue by separate order. SO ORDERED. Signed on February 23, 2026, at Houston, Texas.

orbbleCUharles Eskridge United States District Judge

Haoying Zhang v. Bitfeifan Technology Co, Inc, et al, (S.D. Tex. 2026).

Pincite

Haoying Zhang v. Bitfeifan Technology Co, Inc, et al (Haoying Zhang v. Bitfeifan Technology Co, Inc, et al) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related