Whether the court erred in finding that the plaintiff did not properly serve the defendant despite service by U.S. Marshals

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1) The defendant received Court Summons via U.S.Marshals, pursuant to FRCP ( Federal Rutes of Civil Procedure) Rule 4 (c)(3), the plaintiff case was granted by court, under in Forma Pauperis, Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1916, why is the court claiming, the plaintiff did not server the defendant, when the Summons was served by U.S.Marshal, pursuant to rule 55? 2) Why is the court not granting defautt judgement to the plaintiff, the defendant(s) fail to respond or appear to court, when evident(s) has been proven? 3) Pursuant to Fair Debt collection Practices ( FOCPA), the plaintiff has proven this act from the defendant(s) applying two debt(s) to the credit bureau's of the same account, from two different agencies. This act, raised the plaintiff debt ratio too high for law enforcement employment, and/or maintain Top security clearance. Evident(s) has been proven, and claim(s) for relief, why the court did not grant plaintiff enforcement? 2 4) Ifthe court befieves the case has no subject matter personal! jurisdiction, why did formal employer, Department of Homeland Security/TSA/Office of Law Enforcement/Federal Air Marshal Services revoke his security clearance and put on indefinite Suspension, after the defendant(s) raised gamishment from wages not true, causing bankruptcies and not able to pay common bills? 5) Why is the court belief that the plaintiff does not have subject matter personal jurisdiction, when the plaintiff has proven with evidence(s) of federal(s) laws have been violated, from fraudulent document(s) of salary, not coming from agency, per policy and procedure? 6) The defendant(s) can apply one account with two different debts to the plaintiff's credit report, which was brought to the attention of the plaintiff from creditor, when applying for a law enforcement job? 7) WHEN FEDERAL LAWS HAVE BEEN VIOLATED AND PROVEN, THE STATE AND/OR THE DEFENDANT MUST ENFORCE THE FEDERAL LAWS FIRST? i.