Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_11-cv-00376/USCOURTS-azd-4_11-cv-00376-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Delemas C. Warren,

Plaintiff,

v.

RJM Acquisitions, LLC, a New York Company;

and Jamie Rozansky, individually, and as an

officer of RJM Acquisitions, LLC, 

Defendants. ______________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CIV 11-376 TUC FRZ (LAB)

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION

Pending before the court is an Order to Show Cause issued to the plaintiff on March

21, 2014. (Doc. 51)

On February 6, 2013, this court issued a scheduling order pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.

16(b). The deadline for completing discovery was set for September 2, 2013. The deadline

for filing a proposed pretrial order was November 1, 2013. A status report was due on

September 2, 2013. 

On February 26, 2013, the plaintiff filed a petition for writ of mandamus with the

Ninth Circuit. The petition was denied on March 28, 2013 returning jurisdiction over the

case to the district court. Since that time, there has been no further activity in this case.

Accordingly, on March 21, 2014, this court issued an order instructing the plaintiff

to file with the court, by April 3, 2014, a response showing good cause why this action

should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. (Doc. 51); LRCiv 41.1. The plaintiff was

warned that this action could be dismissed without further notice if he failed to file a timely

response to the court’s order.

Case 4:11-cv-00376-FRZ-LAB Document 52 Filed 04/11/14 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 plaintiff did not file a timely response to the court’s order to show cause.

Accordingly, 

Recommendation

The Magistrate Judge recommends the District Court, after its independent review

of the record, enter an order 

DISMISSING this action for failure to prosecute and failure to respond. LRCiv

41.1; LRCiv 7.2(i).

 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636 (b), 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 Local Rules permit a response to an

objection. They do not permit a reply to a response.

DATED this 11th day of April, 2014.

Case 4:11-cv-00376-FRZ-LAB Document 52 Filed 04/11/14 Page 2 of 2