Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02826/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02826-0/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

ADOLFO HERNANDEZ, )

)

 Plaintiff, )

) CIV 05-02826 PHX EHC MEA

vs. ) 

) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

JOE ARPAIO, CAPTAIN PETERSON, ) FOR DISMISSAL

) WITHOUT PREJUDICE

 Defendants. )

_______________________________)

TO THE HONORABLE EARL H. CARROLL:

Plaintiff filed his complaint on September 15, 2005.

On January 26, 2006, the Court ordered Plaintiff to complete and

return a service packet for Defendants to the Court by February

15, 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. Plaintiff has not returned a service

packet to the Court for Defendants. 

Plaintiff was warned that his failure to acquire a

waiver of service from Defendants or to complete service of

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

his complaint, by March 27, 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-02826-EHC Document 7 Filed 10/31/06 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 that

Plaintiff has failed to acquire a waiver of service from

Defendants or to complete service of process on Defendants.

On July 19, 2006, the Court allowed Plaintiff until

August 25, 2006, to show cause why this case should not be

dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s

order of January 26, 2006, and Plaintiff’s failure to effect

service of process on Defendants as required by the Court’s

order of January 26, 2006, and Rule 4, Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. Plaintiff has failed to show cause for his failure

to abide by the Court’s orders and to effect service of process

on Defendants. 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

Defendants.

THEREFORE, IT IS RECOMMENDED that this case be

dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to serve the Defendants in

this matter.

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. 

Case 2:05-cv-02826-EHC Document 7 Filed 10/31/06 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-

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

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 31st day of October, 2006.

 

.

Case 2:05-cv-02826-EHC Document 7 Filed 10/31/06 Page 3 of 3