Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02424/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02424-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)

---

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

Harry Byrd, III,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

People of Color Network, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 09-2424-PHX-DGC

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

TO THE HONORABLE DAVID G. CAMPBELL, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE:

The Complaint in this matter was filed November 19, 2009, along with Plaintiff’s Motion

to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (Doc. #4). On December 16, 2009, the Court denied Plaintiff’s

Motion (Doc. #7). After the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to extend the time for him to pay

the filing fee, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s December 16, 2009

Order (Doc. #10). On February 23, 2010, the Court issued an Order directing the Plaintiff to

file an Amended Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (Doc. #12). In that Order the Plaintiff

was advised that failure to comply with said Order could result in the dismissal of this action.

 Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s February 23, 2010 Order and has not submitted

an Amended Motion nor has Plaintiff paid the required filing fee or demonstrated that he

qualifies for in forma pauperis status.

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that due to Plaintiff’s failure to comply with

this Court’s Order, that this action be dismissed.

Case 2:09-cv-02424-DGC Document 13 Filed 04/09/10 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 -

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. The parties shall have

fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within which to file

specific written objections with the Court. See, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Rules 72, 6(a), 6(b),

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, the parties have fourteen days within which to

file a response to the objections. Failure timely to file objections to the Magistrate Judge's

Report and Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report and Recommendation

by the district court without further review. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114,

1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Failure timely to file objections to any factual determinations of the

Magistrate Judge will be considered a waiver of a party’s right to appellate review of the

findings of fact in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge’s

recommendation. See Rule 72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

DATED this 9th day of April, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-02424-DGC Document 13 Filed 04/09/10 Page 2 of 2