
    WEIFANG XINLI PLASTIC PRODUCTS CO. LTD., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JBM TRADING INC., Defendant, Chao Ming Zhen, AKA Kevin M. Zhen, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-737-CV.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Nov. 26, 2014.
    William Yeung, Law Office of Yeung & Wang, PLLC, Flushing, NY, for Defen-danb-Appellant.
    Martin W. Chow, Law Offices of Martin W. Chow, LLC, Bellmore, N.Y. (Rena Snow, on the brief), for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    PRESENT: ROBERTA. KATZMANN, Chief Judge, RICHARD C. WESLEY, and RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant Chao Ming Zhen appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to vacate the default judgment entered against him on January 5, 2012, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Kuntz, J.). We remanded the case to the district court pursuant to the procedure set out in United States v. Jacobson, 15 F.3d 19, 22 (2d Cir.1994), for the district court to supplement the record with a reasoned explanation for 1) its determination that Zhen did not show good cause to vacate the default judgment against him pursuant to Rule 55(c); 2) its determination that service was proper under New York Civil Practice Law and Rules § 308(4), and the “due diligence” requirement thereunder; and 3) its determination that New York Civil Practice Law and Rules § 317 does not provide grounds for relief from the judgment of default. See Orders of January 28, 2014, and March 28, 2014, ECF Nos. 74 & 80.

The district court referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Bloom, who conducted an evidentiary hearing and issued a Report and Recommendation on May 2, 2014. The Magistrate Judge’s report recommended that the district court adhere to its prior decision denying Chao Ming Zhen’s motion to vacate the default judgment. On August 26, 2014, the district court adopted Judge Bloom’s Report and Recommendation over objections filed by the appellant and supplemented the record in accordance with our remand order.

We affirm the district court’s denial of the appellant’s motion to vacate the default judgment for substantially the reasons giv-, en by the district court’s thorough opinion. We have reviewed the appellant’s objections to the Report and Recommendation, along with his remaining arguments in support of this appeal, and find them to be without merit.

For the reasons stated herein, the order of the district court is AFFIRMED.  