Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02879/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02879-0/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

KENNETH A. LANDREAUX, )

)

 Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) CIV 06-02879 PHX ROS MEA

)

JOSEPH ARPAIO, ) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

) FOR DISMISSAL

 Defendant. ) WITHOUT PREJUDICE

_______________________________)

TO THE HONORABLE ROSLYN O. SILVER:

Plaintiff filed his complaint on November 30, 2006.

On February 13, 2007, the Court ordered Plaintiff to complete

and return a service packet for Defendant to the Court by March

5, 2007. Plaintiff was warned that his failure to acquire a

waiver of service from Defendant or to complete service of

process on Defendant within 60 days of the date the service

order was filed, i.e., by April 13, 2007, 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 Court for the District of Arizona Local Rules of Civil

Procedure. The civil docket in this matter indicates that

Plaintiff has failed to return service packets to the Court, or

acquire a waiver of service from Defendant or to complete

service of process on Defendant.

Case 2:06-cv-02879-ROS Document 7 Filed 05/16/07 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-

On April 17, 2007, the Court allowed Plaintiff until

May 11, 2007, to show cause why this case should not be

dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to effect service of process

on Defendant as required by the Court’s order of February 13,

2007, and Rule 4, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff

has failed to show cause for his failure to effect service of

process on Defendant. 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.

THEREFORE, IT IS RECOMMENDED that this case be

dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to serve the Defendant 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. 

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

Case 2:06-cv-02879-ROS Document 7 Filed 05/16/07 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-

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 15th day of May, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-02879-ROS Document 7 Filed 05/16/07 Page 3 of 3