Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00340/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00340-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Adolpho Aros,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph Arpaio, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-00340-PHX-MHM (GEE) 

ORDER

Plaintiff, Adolpho Aros, filed his Civil Rights Complaint on January 27, 2006. (Dkt.

#1). The same day the Court issued its "Notice of Assignment" advising Plaintiff that he

"must file a Notice of Change of Address if your address changes" and that failure to comply

"will result in your document being STRUCK and/or your case being DISMISSED." (Dkt.

#2). On April 21, 2006, the Court issued a screening order advising Plaintiff that "at all times

during the pendency of this action, Plaintiff shall immediately advise the Court and the

United States Marshal of any change of address and its effective date." (Dkt. #4). On May

11, 2006, Defendant's waiver of service of process was returned by Plaintiff. (Dkt. #5). On

June 30, 2006, Defendant filed his Motion to Dismiss. (Dkt. #6). On July 6, 2006, the Court

issued an order instructing the Plaintiff to file a response by August 9, 2006. (Dkt. #7). On

July 19, 2006, Plaintiff's copy of the July 6, 2006 order was returned as undeliverable. (Dkt.

#8). 

Case 2:06-cv-00340-MHM Document 11 Filed 09/14/06 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 -

The Magistrate Judge filed her Report and Recommendation on August 22, 2006,

recommending that Plaintiff's case be dismissed for failure to prosecute pursuant to Rule

41(b) Fed.R.Civ.P. (Dkt. #9). Plaintiff's copy of the Report and Recommendation was again

returned as undeliverable. (Dkt.#10). In addition, Plaintiff has not filed any objections. See

United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (stating that

district court must review the Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendations de novo if

objection is made but not otherwise). The Court finds itself in agreement with the Report and

Recommendations of the Magistrate Judge.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation of

the Magistrate Judge as the order of this Court. (Dkt. #9).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing this case for Plaintiff's failure to prosecute

pursuant to Rule 41(b), Fed.R.Civ.P.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the clerk of the Court to enter judgment

accordingly.

DATED this 11th day of September, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-00340-MHM Document 11 Filed 09/14/06 Page 2 of 2