Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-01164/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-01164-0/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 

Raymond M. Conoboy, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV 16-01164-PHX-JJT (DMF)

REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION 

TO THE HONORABLE JOHN J. TUCHI, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE: 

This matter is before the undersigned on referral from the District Judge. Because 

a magistrate judge cannot decide a “matter dispositive of a claim or defense or a prisoner 

petition challenging the conditions of confinement,” Rule 72(b)(1), Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, the undersigned recommends as follows. 

On April 21, 2016, Plaintiff Raymond M. Conoboy, who is confined in the 

Arizona State Prison System in Arizona, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1983 and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Docs. 1, 2). In an 

April 27, 2016, Order, the Court granted the Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 

and dismissed the Complaint because Plaintiff had failed to state a claim (Doc. 6). The 

Court gave Plaintiff 30 days to file an amended complaint that cured the deficiencies 

identified in the Order. Id. On May 13, 2016, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint 

(Doc. 8). On June 8, 2016, the Court issued a Screening Order which ordered service on 

Defendants, within 60 days, to answer the First Amended Complaint (Doc. 9). 

In accordance with the District Court’s Order, Plaintiff returned the service 

Case 2:16-cv-01164-JJT-DMF Document 26 Filed 10/25/16 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 

packets for Defendants, including Defendant Unknown Brown, and the United States 

Marshal’s Service (“USMS”) attempted service. Defendants Ryan, Vicklund, Charion, 

Washburn, Van Winkle, and Linderman were served (see Docs. 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17). 

However, the Process Receipt and Return form (Doc. 10) filed with regard to Defendant 

Unknown Brown indicates that the service packet was returned unexecuted. The address 

given for Defendant Unknown Brown in the service packet appears to be a P.O. Box. 

The District Court’s June 8, 2016, Screening Order specifically warned that, “[i]f 

Plaintiff does not either obtain a waiver of service of the summons or complete service of 

the Summons and First Amended Complaint on a Defendant within 90 days of the filing 

of the Complaint or within 60 days of the filing of this Order, whichever is later, the 

action may be dismissed as to each Defendant not served. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m); LRCiv 

16.2(b)(2)(B)(ii)” (Doc. 9 at 5). In light of the notice from the USMS showing that 

service upon Defendant Unknown Brown was unexecuted, and given the expiration of 

the time limits to complete service, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show by September 6, 

2016, why Defendant Unknown Brown should not be dismissed from this action based on 

Plaintiff’s failure to timely serve him (Doc. 18). Plaintiff did not respond to the Order to 

Show Cause at Doc. 18. 

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Defendant Unknown Brown be 

dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to serve this Defendant within the time specified by the 

Court (see Docs. 9, 18). 

 This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules 

of Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the District Court’s judgment. 

 Pursuant to Rule 72(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties shall have 

fourteen (14) days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within 

which to file specific written objections with the Court. Thereafter, the parties have 

fourteen (14) days within which to file a response to the objections. Pursuant to Rule 7.2, 

Local Rules of Civil Procedure for the United States District Court for the District of 

Arizona, objections to the Report and Recommendation may not exceed seventeen (17) 

Case 2:16-cv-01164-JJT-DMF Document 26 Filed 10/25/16 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 

pages in length. 

 Failure to timely file objections to any factual or legal determinations of the 

Magistrate Judge will be considered a waiver of a party’s right to de novo appellate 

consideration of the issues. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th 

Cir. 2003) (en banc). Failure to timely file objections to any factual or legal 

determinations of the Magistrate Judge will constitute a waiver of a party’s right to 

appellate review of the findings of fact and conclusions of law in an order or judgment 

entered pursuant to the recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. 

 Dated this 25th day of October, 2016. 

Honorable Deborah M. Fine

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:16-cv-01164-JJT-DMF Document 26 Filed 10/25/16 Page 3 of 3