Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_11-cv-00174/USCOURTS-azd-4_11-cv-00174-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

David F. Thompson, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Michael Astrue, Commissioner of Social 

Security, 

Defendant. 

No. CV-11-00174-TUC-FRZ (CRP)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

 

Plaintiff David Thompson seeks judicial review of the administrative decision 

denying his application for social security benefits. Doc. 1. He filed an amended 

complaint on March 25, 2011. Doc. 5. More than five months later, on September 6, 

2011, Plaintiff filed a copy of a waiver of the service of summons he had completed. 

Doc. 13. 

 In an order dated November 30, 2011, the Magistrate Judge explained to Plaintiff 

that a waiver of the service of summons is a document to be completed by the defendant 

if he were to agree to waive service, and that the waiver Plaintiff completed and filed 

does not show he has effectuated proper service on Defendant. Plaintiff was directed to 

Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, specifically, Rule 4(m)’s requirement that 

service be completed within 120 days and Rule 4(i)’s procedures for serving process on 

an officer of the United States. Plaintiff was given until January 6, 2012 to effectuate 

service. He was explicitly warned that failure to do so may result in dismissal of the 

Case 4:11-cv-00174-FRZ-CRP Document 16 Filed 01/13/12 Page 1 of 3
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

case. He was further warned that his failure to prosecute the action or comply with the 

rules or any Court order may result in the dismissal of the action with prejudice. Doc. 15. 

 To date, Plaintiff has filed no affidavit or other document showing he has served 

process on Defendant as required by Rule 4 and the order dated November 30, 2011. For 

reasons stated below, the Magistrate Judge recommends that, after its independent 

review, the District Court dismiss this action without prejudice. 

I. Discussion.

 Rule 4(m) provides that where a defendant is not served within 120 days after the 

complaint is filed, the Court, unless the defendant shows good cause for his failure, must 

dismiss the action without prejudice. Plaintiff has not shown good cause for his failure to 

timely effectuate service on the Commissioner and the United States as required by 

Rule 4(i). Pursuant to Rule 4(m), this action should be dismissed. 

In addition to Rule 4(m), the Magistrate Judge has considered this Circuit’s fivepart test to determine whether a dismissal sanction is just where the plaintiff fails to 

comply with the rules or an order of the court. Those factors are (1) the public’s interest 

in expeditious resolution of the litigation, (2) the court’s need to manage its docket, 

(3) the risk of prejudice to the opposing party, (4) the public policy favoring disposition 

of cases on their merits, and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. See Valley 

Eng’rs, Inc. v. Elec. Eng’g Co., 158 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 1998); Ghazali v. Moran, 

46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). 

 Considering this five-factor test, the Magistrate Judge concludes that dismissal 

without prejudice is appropriate. The public’s interest in expeditious resolution of 

litigation and the Court’s need to manage its docket require action when a plaintiff 

refuses to serve process. The defendant is unable to move forward with his defense when 

the plaintiff refuses to prosecute the case. The Magistrate Judge has considered less 

drastic sanctions, but none is apparent. This action has been pending for more than eight 

months and yet Plaintiff has not effectuated service on Defendant despite being ordered 

to do so. The Magistrate Judge concludes that the appropriate result is dismissal. 

Case 4:11-cv-00174-FRZ-CRP Document 16 Filed 01/13/12 Page 2 of 3
- 3 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

II. Recommendation.

 In summary, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court dismiss this 

action without prejudice. 

The parties may file written objections within fourteen days of being served with a 

copy of the Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 

72(b)(2). The parties are advised that untimely objections may be deemed waived and 

non-specific, general objections do not require the District Court to exercise de novo 

review. Id.; see Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 

328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Any objections are to be identified with the 

following case number: CV-11-00174-TUC-FRZ. 

DATED this 13th day of January, 2012. 

Case 4:11-cv-00174-FRZ-CRP Document 16 Filed 01/13/12 Page 3 of 3