Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-00385/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-00385-0/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

Michael James Cook,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Corizon Medical, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV 19-00385 PHX JJT (CDB)

REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION

TO THE HONORABLE JOHN J. TUCHI:

In an order (ECF No. 9) entered May 16, 2019, the Court ordered Defendants 

Corizon Medical (Corizon Health, Inc. (ECF No. 21)), Ryan, Pratt, Perkins, Stewart, 

Corliss, Brown, and Burns to answer the First Amended Complaint. The Court also 

ordered Plaintiff to file a “Notice of Substitution” within 120 days, i.e., by September 13, 

2019, substituting “the actual name of Defendants Jane Doe, Jane Doe 2, and the 

individual members of the Utilization Team,” who were named as defendants but not 

identified in the First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 9 at 9). The Court warned Plaintiff: 

“The Court may dismiss without prejudice Defendants Jane Doe, Jane Doe 2, and the 

Utilization Team if Plaintiff fails to timely file a notice of substitution, unless Plaintiff 

seeks and is granted an extension of time.” (ECF No. 9 at 7-8).

Plaintiff moved the Court to subpoena the names of “Corizon Medical’s 

Utilization team” on July 7, 2019, stating he had “no other way of obtaining such 

information.” (ECF No. 12 at 2). Plaintiff’s motion seeking subpoenas was denied 

Case 2:19-cv-00385-JJT-CDB Document 34 Filed 11/04/19 Page 1 of 3
- 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

because, at that time, Defendants had not been served nor appeared in this matter and 

Plaintiff would have the opportunity to seek the identities of the Doe defendants through 

discovery. Defendants Corizon, Perkins, Stewart, Brown, Corliss, Burns, Ryan, and Pratt 

were served and answered the First Amended Complaint on August 20, 2019. (ECF No. 

21). A Scheduling Order was issued August 22, 2019. (ECF No. 22). The deadline for 

substituting identified individuals for the Doe defendants and the “Utilization team” 

expired September 13, 2019.

Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s order at ECF No. 9 by filing the 

requisite Notice of Substitution, and Plaintiff has failed to move for an extension of the 

deadline for doing so nor has Plaintiff sought to obtain the identities of the Doe 

defendants.

Accordingly,

IT IS RECOMMENDED that Defendants Jane Doe, Jane Doe 2, and 

“Utilization Team” be dismissed without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with 

the Court’s order at ECF No. 9 requiring him to file a Notice of Substitution identifying 

these Defendants. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) 

(concluding a district court may dismiss an action for failure to comply with any order of 

the Court).

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 

fourteen (14) 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 

fourteen (14) days within which to file a response to the objections. Pursuant to Rule 7.2, 

Local Rules of Civil Procedure for the United States District Court for the District of

Arizona, objections to the Report and Recommendation may not exceed seventeen (17) 

pages in length.

Case 2:19-cv-00385-JJT-CDB Document 34 Filed 11/04/19 Page 2 of 3
- 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

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). 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 1st day of November, 2019.

Case 2:19-cv-00385-JJT-CDB Document 34 Filed 11/04/19 Page 3 of 3