than to President Fagan. 8 . The plaintiffs also assert a retaliation claim against the trustees. However, this claim, like the other First Amendment claim, fails against the trustees because there is no evidence that they played a role in formulating the security arrangements for the January 27 alumni events. 9 . Finally, we summarily affirm the district court’s decision to dismiss, without prejudice, the plaintiffs' First Amendment claims against certain "unnamed, known security guards” for failure to comply with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) and the court’s subsequent denial of the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend the complaint to add the previously unnamed security guards. See Troxell v. Fedders of N. America, Inc., 160 F.3d 381, 383 (7th Cir.1998)
holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to extend time for service of process under rule 4m holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to apply doctrine of equitable estoppel even though complaint alleged collusive scheme to defraud holding that superior court did not abuse its discretion in finding that rule 60b6 motion was made within a reasonable time holding district court did not abuse its discretion in not granting plaintiffs leave to amend complaint for a third time holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to apply laches where the only prejudice shown by the government was attributable to its own delay rather than to that of the movant