Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_07-cv-00309/USCOURTS-azd-4_07-cv-00309-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

Cheryl Wells, )

)

 Plaintiff, ) No. CV 07-309 TUC FRZ (JM)

)

 v. )

) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Jan Kearney, et al., )

)

 Defendants. )

 )

On October 9, 2009, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause [Doc. No. 112]

ordering Plaintiff, by November 6, 2009, to provide the Court with an affidavit showing good

cause why the Magistrate Judge should not issue a report and recommendation to the District

Court recommending that this case be dismissed pursuant to Rule 4(m) due to Plaintiff’s

failure to serve the two remaining defendants in this case, Cia Wells and Alan Belauskas.

The docket reflects that, as of the date of this Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff has

neither served the remaining defendants, nor filed the required affidavit of good cause. 

Based on the foregoing, the Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that the District

Court, after its independent review, dismiss this action without prejudice as to Defendants

Cia Wells and Alan Belauskas based on Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute.

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. 

However, 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 District Court. See

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rules 72(b), 6(a) and 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Thereafter, the parties have ten (10) days within which to file a response to the objections.

Case 4:07-cv-00309-FRZ-JR Document 121 Filed 12/02/09 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 -

If any objections are filed, this action should be designated case number: CV 07-309-TUCFRZ. Failure to timely file objections to any factual or legal determination of the Magistrate

Judge may be considered a waiver of a party's right to de novo consideration of the issues.

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

DATED this 2nd day of December, 2009.

Case 4:07-cv-00309-FRZ-JR Document 121 Filed 12/02/09 Page 2 of 2