Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00075/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00075-0/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

HANS G. HIGGINS, )

)

 Plaintiff, )

) CIV 07-00075 PHX PGR MEA

vs. ) 

) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

JOE ARPAIO, ) FOR DISMISSAL

) WITHOUT PREJUDICE

 Defendant. ) 

_______________________________)

TO THE HONORABLE PAUL G. ROSENBLATT:

Plaintiff filed his complaint on January 9, 2007. On

February 21, 2007, the Court ordered Plaintiff to complete and

return a service packet for Defendant to the Court by March 13,

2007. That order warned Plaintiff that his failure to timely

comply with the provisions of the order would result in the

dismissal of the complaint pursuant to Rule 41(b), Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure. 

Plaintiff was warned that his failure to acquire a

waiver of service from Defendants or to complete service of

process on Defendants within 120 days of the date the amended

complaint was filed, by May 8, 2007, would result in the

dismissal of the complaint pursuant to Rule 4(m), Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure, and Rule 16.2(b)(2)(B), of the United States

District Court for the District of Arizona Local Rules of Civil

Case 2:07-cv-00075-PGR Document 7 Filed 07/19/07 Page 1 of 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

-2-

Procedure. The civil docket in this matter indicates that

Plaintiff has failed to return service packets to the Court, or

acquire a waiver of service from Defendant or to complete

service of process on Defendant.

On May 15, 2007, the Court allowed Plaintiff until

June 29, 2007, to show cause why this case should not be

dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to effect service of process

on Defendant as required by the Court’s order of February 21,

2007, and Rule 4, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff

has failed to show cause for his failure to effect service of

process on Defendant. The Order to Show Cause sent to Plaintiff

at his last known address was not returned as undeliverable;

Plaintiff did receive notice of the Court’s intent to dismiss

this matter.

THEREFORE, IT IS RECOMMENDED that this case be

dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to serve the Defendant in this

matter.

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 ten (10) 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 ten (10) days within which to file a response to

the objections. Failure to timely file objections to any

Case 2:07-cv-00075-PGR Document 7 Filed 07/19/07 Page 2 of 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

-3-

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

recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. 

DATED this 19th day of July, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-00075-PGR Document 7 Filed 07/19/07 Page 3 of 3