Magistrate Judge recommends dismissal of my case - 4

Furthermore, if we assume that there is a place to argue for a prejudiced dismissal according to FRCP Rule 4 (m) then that would be with the part that speaks about extensions in the rule. Otherwise failing to serve after the first 120 days directly states dismissal without prejudice if the court chooses not to extend the period. Here, the court ordered service within one period of 120 days. So even if we assume that period contains an extension, it is not the same as the extension of Rule 4 (m) which needs to be ordered after the elapse of the 120 days initial time and would also make the plaintiff knows clearly when the extension begins and ends. The extensions Rule 4 (m) spoke about are also not the ones that result from passively allowing things to extend beyond the original time period.  

Accordingly, if the 120 days represented the original period given to the plaintiff to serve his complaint according to Rule 4 (m) then the rule directly require unprejudiced dismissal. If, on the other hand it was intended to contain an extension then that is not the extension the rule spoke about.