Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00335/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00335-0/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 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Damien Lee Toliver, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Unknown De La Fuente, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-14-00335-PHX-JJT

ORDER 

 At issue is United States Magistrate Judge James F. Metcalf’s Report and 

Recommendation (Doc. 79) (“R&R”) that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s claims in this 

matter as against Defendants Parnell and Salcido only, without prejudice. The time for 

Plaintiff to file a response or objection to the R&R expired on December 15, 2015, and 

Plaintiff has filed no response or objection by that date or since. As Judge Metcalf 

warned in the R&R, a failure to timely file objections to any findings or 

recommendations of the Magistrate Judge is considered a waiver of a party’s right to de 

novo consideration of the issues. United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th 

Cir. 2003) (en banc). Nonetheless, the District Court reviews the issues, the legal 

reasoning and factual basis of Judge Metcalf’s R&R. Upon such review, the Court 

concludes the R&R is sound in all respects, and the Court will follow its 

recommendations. 

 As set forth in detail in the R&R, the Court extended the time for service of 

Defendants Parnell and Salcido to the maximum date to effect service pursuant to 

Case 2:14-cv-00335-JJT Document 95 Filed 05/03/16 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

LRCiv. 16.2(b), and then extended the date nearly four more months beyond that 

deadline. Plaintiff has been unable to effect service by the deadline or thereafter, and, as 

the R&R concludes correctly, has not shown good cause or excusable neglect for that 

failure to serve. The Court finds that there is a danger of prejudice to the unserved 

Defendants as this matter has proceeded beyond the filing of dispositive motions, and 

forcing defendants to join the matter now would make it nearly impossible for them to 

participate meaningfully in defense of the claims. The length and impact of delay also 

militates against a finding of excusable neglect. The case is now over two years old, and 

service on both Defendants Parnell and Salcido was returned unexecuted more than seven 

months ago, with no subsequent action. There appears no reason for the failure in service 

other than simple neglect. And while the Court agrees with Judge Metcalf’s conclusion 

that there is no indication of bad faith on Plaintiff’s part, on balance, the factors still 

militate against a finding of excusable neglect. 

IT IS ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 79) in whole. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing this matter without prejudice as to 

Defendants Parnell and Salcido only. The matter shall proceed against the remaining 

Defendants. 

 Dated this 3rd day of May, 2016. 

Honorable John J. Tuchi 

United States District Judge 

Case 2:14-cv-00335-JJT Document 95 Filed 05/03/16 Page 2 of 2