Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_07-cv-00355/USCOURTS-azd-4_07-cv-00355-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 861
Nature of Suit: Social Security - HIA (1395 ff)
Cause of Action: 42:205 Denial Social Security Benefits

---

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

Brenda Louise Davis, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of the

Social Security Administration, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-355 TUC FRZ (JM)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

In accordance with the Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for the

District of Arizona and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this matter was referred to the Magistrate

Judge for report and recommendation. As explained below, the Magistrate Judge

recommends that the District Court, after an independent review of the record, provide notice

to Plaintiff and dismiss the complaint if good cause does not exist to do otherwise. 

Background

Pursuant to the order entered in this action granting Plaintiff in forma pauperis status,

the Court ordered that the Plaintiff was responsible for the service of the summons and

complaint in this action [Docket No. 4]. Rule 4(m), Fed.R.Civ.P., provides that:

If service of the summons and complaint is not made upon a

defendant within 120 days after the filing of the complaint, the

court, upon motion or on its own initiative after notice to the

plaintiff, shall dismiss the action without prejudice . . . .

Case 4:07-cv-00355-FRZ Document 5 Filed 02/27/09 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 -

Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m). More than 120 days have passed since the filing of the complaint, and

there is no indication in the record that it has been served on the Defendant.

Additionally, Plaintiff was warned in the Scheduling Order that “[a]bsent any pending

dispositive motions, this case may be dismissed as prescribed in Local Rule LRCiv. 41.1

Rules of Practice.” [Docket No. 3]. Local Rule 41.1 provides that:

Cases which have had no proceedings for six (6) months or

more months may be dismissed by the Court for want of

prosecution. Notice shall be given to the parties that such action

is contemplated, and a status hearing shall be scheduled where

the parties may show good cause why such action should not be

taken.

L.R.Civ. 41.1. There are no pending motions in this case and the docket reflects that no

proceedings have occurred in six months.

Recommendation

Based on the foregoing and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule Civil 72.1,

Rules of Practice of the United States District Court, District of Arizona, the Magistrate

Judge recommends that the District Court, after an independent review of the record, issue

notice to the Plaintiff that his action shall be dismissed unless good cause is established for

doing otherwise.

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. 

However, 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 District Court. See

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rules 72(b), 6(a) and 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Thereafter, the parties have ten (10) days within which to file a response to the objections.

If any objections are filed, this action should be designated case number: CV 07-355-TUCFRZ. Failure to timely file objections to any factual or legal determination of the Magistrate

Judge may be considered a waiver of a party's right to de novo consideration of the issues.

Case 4:07-cv-00355-FRZ Document 5 Filed 02/27/09 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 -

See United States v. Reyna-Tapia 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).

DATED this 26th day of February, 2009.

Case 4:07-cv-00355-FRZ Document 5 Filed 02/27/09 Page 3 of 3