Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00722/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00722-0/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

Paul D. Smith, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

AZ Corrections Dept., et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-05-722-PHX-JWS (LOA)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter arises on the Court’s review of the file. Plaintiff commenced this action on

March 4, 2005. (document # 1) On December 19, 2005, the Court granted Plaintiff in forma

pauperis status and ordered service on the defendants, Trawick and John Doe Badge #12926.

(document # 12) On February 2, 2006, service was returned unexecuted as to both defendants.

(documents ## 13, 14) 

On February 16, 2006, Plaintiff filed a motion an for order to compel the Arizona

Department of Corrections to provide the last known addresses of the defendants, or in the

alternative, for extension of time to perfect service. (document # 15) The Court denied Plaintiff's

motion to compel, but granted Plaintiff's motion for extension of time. (document # 16) The

Court ordered that failure to effect service of process on or before April 25, 2006 may result in

a dismissal of this matter for failure to serve pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). See Johnson v.

Meltzer, 134 F.3d 1393, 1396 (9th Cir. 1998); and Townsel v. Contra Costa County, Cal., 820

F.2d 319, 321 (9th Cir. 1987). (document # 16) Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) requires that an action

shall be dismissed without prejudice if service is not effected upon a defendant within 120 days

Case 2:05-cv-00722-JWS Document 17 Filed 05/25/06 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 -

after filing the complaint. However, if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure of service,

"the court shall extend the time for an appropriate period." Id. After Plaintiff failed to serve

Defendants within 120 days, the Court granted an extension of time to perfect service.

(document # 16) To date, Plaintiff has not effected service of process as to defendants and the

Court's April 25, 2006 deadline to perfect service has passed.

In view of the foregoing,

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this matter be DISMISSED without prejudice

for failure to serve pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).

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. The parties shall

have ten days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within which to file

specific written objections with the Court. See 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, 6(a),

6(e). Thereafter, the parties have ten days within which to file a response to the objections.

Failure timely to file objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation may

result in the acceptance of the Report and Recommendation by the District Court without further

review. See United States v. Reyna- Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). 

Failure timely to file objections to any factual determinations of the Magistrate Judge

will be considered a waiver of a party=s right to appellate review of the findings of fact in an

order or judgment entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge=s recommendation. See Fed. R. Civ.

P. 72.

DATED this 23rd day of May, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-00722-JWS Document 17 Filed 05/25/06 Page 2 of 2