Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00444/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00444-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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

Jonathan Lightsey, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

Timothy Peltier, et al., 

Defendants. ______________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV 07-444-PHX-ROS (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. Pending

before the Court is Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 14]. For the

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

independent review of the record, grant the pending motion. 

Defendant Timothy Peltier has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No.

14) pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. By Order dated November

5, 2007, Plaintiff was ordered to respond to the summary judgment motion by December 15,

2007 (Docket No. 16). In the same order, Plaintiff was warned that the Court, in its

discretion, could treat his failure to respond to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment

as a consent to the granting of that Motion without further notice, and that judgment may be

entered dismissing this action with prejudice pursuant to Rule 7.2(i) of the Local Rules of

Civil Procedure. See Brydges v. Lewis, 18 F.3d 651 (9th Cir. 1994) (per curiam). As of the

date of this report, Plaintiff has not filed a response to the motion.

Case 2:07-cv-00444-ROS-JR Document 17 Filed 01/11/08 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

Accordingly, 

The Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that the District Court, after its independent

review, issue an Order granting Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No.

14] and dismissing this action.

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 07-444-PHXROS. 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 11th day of January, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-00444-ROS-JR Document 17 Filed 01/11/08 Page 2 of 2