Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01059/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01059-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Joseph Martin Andrews,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Daniel Durazo, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV 07-1059-PHX-MHM (JM)

ORDER

On May 24, 2007, Plaintiff has filed a pro se prisoner civil rights case pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1). The matter was referred to United States Jacqueline Marshall, who

issued a Report and Recommendation on October 9, 2007. Plaintiff has not filed an

objection. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Court must review the legal analysis in the Report and Recommendation de novo.

See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Court must review the factual analysis in the Report and

Recommendation de novo for those facts to which objections are filed. "Failure to object to

a magistrate judge's recommendation waives all objections to the judge's findings of fact."

Jones v. Wood, 207 F.3d 557, 562 n.2 (9th Cir. 2000). 

Case 2:07-cv-01059-MHM Document 9 Filed 12/26/07 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 -

DISCUSSION

In his civil rights action, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Phoenix Police Officer

Daniel Durazo perjured himself and violated Plaintiff’s due process rights, as well as the

First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. In the Court-ordered brief, Defendant

Durazo indicates that the criminal case against Plaintiff was dismissed without prejudice on

August 31, 2007, and that Plaintiff was released from jail. However, Plaintiff has not filed

with the Court a notice of his change of address. 

In this Court’s July 10, 2007 Order, Plaintiff was warned that the failure to comply

with any court order would subject the action to dismissal. Plaintiff has failed to comply

with the Court’s order because he has not filed a Notice of Change of Address. Without a

current address, there is little the Court can do to attempt to remedy this situation. Dismissal

of this case is appropriate because Plaintiff has failed to inform the Court of his current

contact information, in violation of a Court order. See Owens v. Kaiser Foundation Health

Plan, Inc. 244 F.3d 855, 8559 (9th Cir. 2001) (finding it appropriate to dismiss for failure to

prosecute acts as an adjudication on the merits). 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED adopting the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation

(Doc. 7) in its entirety. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing with prejudice this matter in its entirety.

DATED this 19th day of December, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-01059-MHM Document 9 Filed 12/26/07 Page 2 of 2