Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_09-cv-00213/USCOURTS-azd-4_09-cv-00213-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:205 Denial Social Security Benefits

---

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

Donnashay Williams and Valerie Miles, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of the

Social Security Administration, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 09-213 TUC JMR (JM)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This is a Social Security case. On April 6, 2010, the Court issued an order to Plaintiffs

to show cause why the Magistrate Judge should not issue a report and recommendation to

the District Court recommending that this case be dismissed pursuant to Rule 4(m) for failure

to serve. In response to the order, Plaintiffs submitted a letter which, in pertinent part,

indicates that they were not aware of their obligation to serve the complaint on the defendants

and were unaware of the procedures for service. The Court therefore extended the period for

service and reiterated the procedures for service outlined in the denial letter provided to

Plaintiffs by the Appeals Council.

As of the date of this Report and Recommendation, the docket reflects that service has not

been completed. As an extension and instructions were previously provided, the Magistrate

Judge recommends that this matter be dismissed pursuant to Rule 4(m) for failure to serve

the complaint.

Case 4:09-cv-00213-JMR Document 11 Filed 08/24/10 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 -

Recommendation

Based on the foregoing, the Magistrate Judge recommends the District Court enter an

order DISMISSING the Complaint without prejudice.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2), any party may serve and file written

objections within 14 days of being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation.

If objections are not timely filed, they may be deemed waived. The parties are advised that

any objections filed are to be identified with the following case number: CV-09-0213-TUCJMR. 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 24th day of August, 2010.

Case 4:09-cv-00213-JMR Document 11 Filed 08/24/10 Page 2 of 2