Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02765/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02765-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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

Pedro O. Camarena,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

J. M. Arpaio, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV 05-2765-PHX-MHM (DKD)

ORDER

Plaintiff has filed a pro se prisoner civil rights case pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983

(Doc. 1). The matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge David K. Duncan. On

October 24, 2006, Judge Duncan issued a Scheduling and Discovery Order, setting a

dispositive motion deadline of March 25, 2007. On April 20, 2007, 26 days after the

deadline, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendants neither sought

leave to extend the filing deadline, nor provided any explanation as to why their Motion was

filed untimely. On May 17, 2007, Judge Duncan issued an Order to show good cause why

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment should not be denied as untimely. Defendants

filed a Response stating that they “regret the untimely filing. . . . Unfortunately, there was

a snafu and reliance on our electronic docketing system rather than double-checking the hard

copy led to the untimely filing” (Doc. 48 at 2). On May 25, 2007, Judge Duncan issued a

Report and Recommendation recommending that the Court deny as untimely Defendants’

Case 2:05-cv-02765-MHM Document 50 Filed 07/12/07 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendants have not filed written objections to the Report

and Recommendation. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Court must review the legal analysis in the Report and Recommendation de novo.

See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Court must review the factual analysis in the Report and

Recommendation de novo for those facts to which objections are filed. "Failure to object to

a magistrate judge's recommendation waives all objections to the judge's findings of fact."

Jones v. Wood, 207 F.3d 557, 562 n.2 (9th Cir. 2000). 

DISCUSSION

Defendants filed their Motion for Summary Judgment 26 days after the deadline for

such filings, without seeking leave to extend the filing deadline and with no explanation as

to why the Motion was filed untimely. Only after Judge Duncan directed Defendants to

show good cause why Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment should not be denied as

untimely, Defendants stated that they had a “snafu with their electronic docketing system.”

This is insufficient cause to extend the filing deadline by 26 days without having sought

leave to extend the deadline. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED adopting the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation

(Doc. 49) in its entirety. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment

(Doc. 44) is denied as untimely. 

DATED this 10th day of July, 2007.

Case 2:05-cv-02765-MHM Document 50 Filed 07/12/07 Page 2 of 2