Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00029/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00029-1/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Rodney Schneider, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph Arpaio, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-06-0029-PHX-JAT

ORDER

On June 20, 2006, the Magistrate Judge issued on Order to Show Cause, instructing

Plaintiff to show cause why his case should not be dismissed for his failure to complete and

return the service packets. (Doc. #5). Unfortunately, the record does not reflect that this

Order was ever mailed to Plaintiff. 

On July 18, 2006, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R)

recommending that this case be dismissed for failure to prosecute. The Order gave Plaintiff

10 days to file objections. This Order was mailed to Plaintiff on July 19, 2006, and not

returned to the Court. Nonetheless, on July 26, 2006, Plaintiff filed a notice of change of

address. On that same day, the R&R was re-mailed to Plaintiff at his new address. More

than 10 days have past since the re-mailing, and no objections to the R&R have been filed.

Typically, the Court could accept the R&R. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149

(1985) (finding that district courts are not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any

issue that is not the subject of an objection” (emphasis added)); United States v. ReynaCase 2:06-cv-00029-JAT Document 8 Filed 09/13/06 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 -

Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (“statute makes it clear that the district

judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection

is made, but not otherwise” (emphasis in original)); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263

F.Supp.2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003). However, the Magistrate Judge instructed this Court

to complete an "independent review" before adopting the R&R. 

Upon such independent review, the Court has determined the irregularities with the

mailings in this case. Therefore, the Court will reject the R&R. Based on the foregoing,

IT IS ORDERED that the R&R (Doc. #6) is rejected for the reasons stated above;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall mail the Order to

Show Cause (Doc. #5) to the Plaintiff with this Order;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall have 10 days from the date of this

Order to comply with the Magistrate Judge's Order by showing cause why this case should

not be dismissed; and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED re-referring this case to the Magistrate Judge.

DATED this 12th day of September, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-00029-JAT Document 8 Filed 09/13/06 Page 2 of 2