Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01226/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01226-0/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

Armando Balmontes, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joe Arpaio,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 05-1226 PHX-SRB (LOA)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter arises on the Court’s review of the file. Plaintiff commenced this action on

April 22, 2005. (document # 1) On April 28, 2005, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed

in forma pauperis, ordered service on Defendant, and ordered Plaintiff immediately to advise

the Court in writing of any change in his address. (document # 3) After Defendant had been

served, on August 11, 2005, the Court issued a Scheduling and Discovery Order. (document

# 7) On August 18, 2005, the Court's August 11, 2005 order was returned marked "Return to

Sender/No Longer in Custody." (document # 8) In view of Plaintiff's failure to advise the

Court of his new address, on August 30, 2005, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause on or

before September 20, 2005 why this matter should not be dismissed. (document # 9) (citing

Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b)). 

Plaintiff has neither responded to the Court's August 30, 2005 order nor advised the

Court of his new address. In fact, on September 6, 2005, the Court again received mail

addressed to Plaintiff marked "Return to Sender/Not Deliverable as Addressed." (document #

Case 2:05-cv-01226-SRB Document 14 Filed 10/06/05 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 -

14) Research failed to reveal a forwarding address. In view of Plaintiff's repeated failure to

comply with Court orders, the undersigned recommends that this matter be dismissed without

prejudice. See, Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b).

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this matter be DISMISSED without prejudice

for failure to comply with Court orders. See, Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). 

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. The parties shall

have ten days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within which to file

specific written objections with the Court. See, 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72, 6(a),

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

Failure timely to file objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation may

result in the acceptance of the Report and Recommendation by the District Court without further

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

to file objections to any factual determinations of the Magistrate Judge will be considered a

waiver of a party=s right to appellate review of the findings of fact in an order or judgment

entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge=s recommendation. See, Fed.R.Civ.P. 72.

DATED this 6th day of October, 2005.

Case 2:05-cv-01226-SRB Document 14 Filed 10/06/05 Page 2 of 2