Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03467/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03467-2/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

David Agnew, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

Joseph Arpaio, 

Defendant. ______________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-3467 PHX NVW (JM)

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and the Local Rules of Practice of the

United States District Court for the District of Arizona, this case was referred to the

Magistrate Judge for all pretrial proceedings and report and recommendation. For the

reasons explained below, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court, after

independent review of the record, dismiss the Complaint [Docket No. 1] with prejudice due

to the Plaintiff's failure to prosecute this action. 

Plaintiff filed pro se the above-titled civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983

on October 28, 2005. By Order dated November 14, 2005, the Clerk of the Court was

directed to send Plaintiff a service packet for Defendant Arpaio. Docket No. 3. Plaintiff was

directed to complete and return the service packet to the Clerk of the Court within twenty

(20) days of the filing of the order. The docket reflects that the packet was sent on November

14, 2005. To date, Plaintiff has not returned the service packet and the docket does not

indicate that the Complaint has been served. 

Included in the December 6, 2005, Order issued by Judge Wake was a Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure, Rule 41(b), warning to Plaintiff that if he failed to timely comply with

Case 2:05-cv-03467-NVW Document 5 Filed 07/18/06 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

every provision of the Order, the action would be dismissed. As the Plaintiff has failed to

timely return the service packets or otherwise serve the Complaint, he has failed to pursue

the prosecution of his case and he is in violation of Judge Wake's order. As such, dismissal

of this action with prejudice is appropriate. Owens v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc.,

244 F.3d 708, 714 (9th Cir. 2001) (dismissal for failure to prosecute acts as an adjudication

on the merits).

Recommendation

Based on the foregoing, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court,

after its independent review, issue an Order dismissing this matter with prejudice. 

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.

If any objections are filed, this action should be designated case number: CV 05-3467 PHX

NVW. 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 18th day of July, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-03467-NVW Document 5 Filed 07/18/06 Page 2 of 2