Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_11-cv-00778/USCOURTS-azd-4_11-cv-00778-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 371
Nature of Suit: Truth in Lending
Cause of Action: 28:1345 Foreclosure

---

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

ERIC B. BATTLES, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 11-778-TUC-CKJ

ORDER

On May 25, 2012, Magistrate Judge Bernardo P. Velasco issued a Report and

Recommendation (Doc. 15) in which he recommended the action be dismissed without

prejudice for failure to prosecute. Battles has filed an Objection.

Pending before the Court is the Motion for Emergency Stay of Foreclosure (Doc. 16)

filed by Plaintiff Eric B. Battles (“Battles”).

On February 24, 2012, this Court screened Battles’s Amended Complaint and found

that a claim for a RESPA violation had been stated against JP Morgan Chase Bank. The

Court stated:

Battles, therefore, may arrange for service of the Complaint upon JP Morgan Chase

Bank in compliance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 4. Alternatively, Battles may choose to

submit a Second Amended Complaint to include, for example, additional defendants

or claims for relief. Any such Second Amended Complaint would be subject to

screening by the Court.

February 24, 2012, Order, p. 4. Additionally, the Court ordered:

3. Battles SHALL HAVE thirty (30) days from the date of filing of this Order

to file a Second Amended Complaint. All causes of action alleged in the original

complaint which are not alleged in any amended complaint will be waived. Any

Case 4:11-cv-00778-CKJ Document 19 Filed 08/15/12 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

1

28 U.S.C. § 636 has been amended to provide a party with 14 days after being served

with a copy an opportunity to serve and file written objections to a Report and

Recommendation. 

- 2 -

Second Amended Complaint filed by Battles must be retyped or rewritten in its

entirety and may not incorporate any part of the original or amended complaints by

reference. Any Second Amended Complaint submitted by Battles shall be clearly

designated as an amended complaint on the face of the document;

* * * * * 

5. A defendant may be dismissed from this action, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.

4(m) if Battles does not either obtain a waiver of service of the summons or

complete service of the Summons and the Third [sic] Amended Complaint on a

defendant within 120 days of the filing of the Complaint or within 60 days of the

filing of this Order, whichever is later. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).

Id. at 5. Battles did not submit a Second Amended Complaint and, on April 16, 2012, this

matter was referred to the Hon. Bernardo P. Velasco for all pretrial proceedings and report

and recommendation in accordance with the provisions of 28 U. S. C. § 636(b)(1) and

L.R.Civ.P. 72.1 and 72.2.

On April 2, 2012, Magistrate Judge Velasco ordered Battles to show cause why “this

case should not be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, for failure to serve the

Defendants pursuant to Rule 4(m), Fed.R.Civ.P., by filing a writing with this Court on or

before May 22, 2012.” May 2, 2012, Order, p. 2. The magistrate judge also ordered that

the case would “be dismissed, should Plaintiff fail to timely comply with [the] Order.” Id.

Battles did not submit any filings on or before May 22, 2012. On May 25, 2012, the

magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation in which he recommended this action

be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) for failure to prosecute.

Battles was advised that, “[p]ursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b), any party may serve and file

written objections within 10 days after being served with a copy of this Report and

Recommendation. If objections are not timely filed they may be deemed waived.” May 25,

2012, Order, p. 4.1

 On May 30, 2012, this Court extended the deadline for filing an

objection to the Report and Recommendation. On June 1, 2012, Battles filed an Objection

to the Report and Recommendation. 

Case 4:11-cv-00778-CKJ Document 19 Filed 08/15/12 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 -

Battles' Objection makes no effort to remedy the service deficiency as discussed in

the Report and Recommendation. Indeed, Battles states that he did not understand that he

was required to notify Defendant of the pending suit; however, rather than attempting to

complete service or request an extension of time in which to complete service, Battles

requests a hearing on his Complaint and the pending matters. The Court agrees with the

magistrate judge that dismissal without prejudice for failing to prosecute is appropriate.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED:

1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 15) is ADOPTED.

2. This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute.

3. All pending motions are DISMISSED AS MOOT.

4. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment and shall then close its file in this

matter.

DATED this 15th day of August, 2012.

Case 4:11-cv-00778-CKJ Document 19 Filed 08/15/12 Page 3 of 3