Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_05-cv-00716/USCOURTS-azd-4_05-cv-00716-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Lorraine Simental,

Plaintiff,

vs.

Richard Hill, et. al.,

Defendants. ___________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV05-716-TUC-JCG

REPORT 

& RECOMMENDATION

The Magistrate Judge recommends that the district court, after its independent

review of the record, enter an order dismissing this action without prejudice for failure

to effect service on the Defendants. This recommendation is based on the following

facts and procedural history. 

SUMMARY OF THE CASE:

Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. No. 1) was filed on November 23, 2005. On

December 5, 2005, the Court issued summons for Defendants (Doc. Nos. 3-10). The

case was assigned to Magistrate Judge Guerin. 

On April 18, 2006, Judge Guerin issued an Order to Show Cause granting

Plaintiff twenty days in which to show cause why this matter should not be dismissed

for failure to effect service on Defendants (Doc. No. 11). 

On May 4, 2006, attorney Michael Butler made a special appearance on behalf

of Plaintiff Lorraine Simental to respond to the Order to Show Cause (Doc. No. 12).

Mr. Butler explained that Plaintiff's counsel had moved to Moldova, a small eastern

Case 4:05-cv-00716-JCG Document 15 Filed 07/25/06 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 Page 2 of 2

European country, and that the attorney who agreed to take over Plaintiff's case had

subsequently conflicted out of representation. The Court granted Plaintiff an

additional sixty days in which to serve Defendants (Doc. No. 14). A copy of the

Court's order was mailed to Plaintiff and Mr. Butler. Pursuant to the order, Plaintiff's

deadline to serve Defendants expired on July 10, 2006. To date, Plaintiff has not filed

proof of service as to any Defendant or requested further extension of time for service.

Defendants have not appeared in this action. 

Because the parties have not consented to the magistrate judge presiding over

this action, this Court has prepared a report and recommendation, which is now

submitted to a District Court Judge chosen by lot under the Clerk's direction – the

Honorable Raner C. Collins. 

RECOMMENDATION

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

review of the record, enter an order 

DISMISSING WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b), any party may serve and file written objections

within 10 days after 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: 

No. CV05-716-TUC-RCC.

DATED this 25th day of July, 2006.

Case 4:05-cv-00716-JCG Document 15 Filed 07/25/06 Page 2 of 2