Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_17-cv-01912/USCOURTS-azd-2_17-cv-01912-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

John Leo Davis,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Paul Penzone, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-17-01912-PHX-SMB (CDB)

ORDER 

Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of 

Magistrate Judge Camille D. Bibles (Doc. 137). The R&R recommends that Defendants 

Corprew and Davidson be dismissed without prejudice for failure to serve. The Magistrate 

Judge advised the parties that they had fourteen days to file objections to the R&R. (R&R 

at 21) (citing Rule 72(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; Rule 8(b), Rules Governing 

Section 2254 Proceedings). Petitioner filed objections on January 21, 2020 (Doc. 140).

The Court has considered the objections and reviewed the Report and 

Recommendation de novo. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that 

the court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and 

Recommendation to which specific objections are made). Specifically, Plaintiff argues 

that it is Defendants fault because they are “playing games”. Plaintiff has provided no 

evidence to suggest that any information provided by Defendants, pursuant to Court order, 

was untruthful or that Defendants actually know where Defendants Corprew and Davidson 

actually live. Defendants Corprew and Davidson never worked as employees for 

Case 2:17-cv-01912-SMB-CDB Document 147 Filed 02/13/20 Page 1 of 2
- 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

Correctional Health Services. This Court has gone above what is required or normally 

done to assist Plaintiff in serving Defendants Corprew and Davidson to no avail. Plaintiff 

has been granted many extensions of time and these defendants have not been served in 

the 2 1⁄2 years that this case has been pending.

The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s determinations, accepts the 

recommended decision within the meaning of Rule 72(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., and overrules 

Petitioner’s objections. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that the district court “may 

accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the 

magistrate”).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the 

Magistrate Judge (Doc. 137) is accepted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that there being no just reason for delay, the Clerk 

of the Court enter judgment dismissing Defendants Corprew and Davidson without 

prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Certificate of Appealability is granted.

Dated this 10th day of February, 2020.

Case 2:17-cv-01912-SMB-CDB Document 147 Filed 02/13/20 Page 2 of 2