Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-04041/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-04041-1/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

STEVEN JAMES, )

)

 Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) CIV 05-04041 PHX DGC MEA

)

JOSEPH M. ARPAIO, ) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

) FOR DISMISSAL

 Defendant. ) WITHOUT PREJUDICE

_______________________________)

Plaintiff filed his complaint on December 12, 2005.

On January 11, 2006, the Court ordered Plaintiff to complete and

return a service packet for Defendant to the Court by January

31, 2006. That order warned Plaintiff that his failure to

timely comply with the provisions of the order would result in

the dismissal of the complaint pursuant to Rule 41(b), Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure. The civil docket in this matter

indicates that Plaintiff never returned a service packet for

Defendant to the Court.

Plaintiff was warned that his failure to acquire a

waiver of service from Defendant or to complete service of

process on Defendant within 120 days of the date that he filed

his complaint, by April 10, 2006, would result in the dismissal

of the complaint pursuant to Rule 4(m), Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, and Rule 16.2(b)(2)(B), of the United States District

Case 2:05-cv-04041-DGC Document 8 Filed 06/02/06 Page 1 of 3
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-

Court for the District of Arizona Local Rules of Civil

Procedure. The civil docket in this matter indicates Plaintiff

has failed to acquire a waiver of service from Defendant or to

complete service of process on Defendant.

On April 11, 2006, the Court gave Plaintiff until May

19, 2006, to show cause why this case should not be dismissed

for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s order of

January 11, 2006, and Plaintiff’s failure to effect service of

process on Defendant as required by the Court’s order of January

11, 2006, and Rule 4, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The

Order to Show Cause sent to Plaintiff at his last known address

was not returned as undeliverable; Plaintiff did receive notice

of the Court’s intent to dismiss this matter. Plaintiff has

failed to show cause for his failure to abide by the Court’s

orders and to effect service of process on Defendant. 

THEREFORE, IT IS RECOMMENDED that this case be

dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to serve the Defendant in this

matter and for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s

order of January 11, 2006.

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. 

Pursuant to Rule 72(b), Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, the parties shall have ten (10) days from the date of

service of a copy of this recommendation within which to file

Case 2:05-cv-04041-DGC Document 8 Filed 06/02/06 Page 2 of 3
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

-3-

specific written objections with the Court. Thereafter, the

parties have ten (10) days within which to file a response to

the objections. Failure to timely file objections to any

factual or legal determinations of the Magistrate Judge will be

considered a waiver of a party’s right to de novo appellate

consideration of the issues. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia,

328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Failure to

timely file objections to any factual or legal determinations of

the Magistrate Judge will constitute a waiver of a party’s right

to appellate review of the findings of fact and conclusions of

law in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the

recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. 

DATED this 1st day of June, 2006.

 

Case 2:05-cv-04041-DGC Document 8 Filed 06/02/06 Page 3 of 3