Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_03-cv-00608/USCOURTS-azd-2_03-cv-00608-0/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

Brian Allen Barone, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIV 03-608 PHX PGR (VAM)

)

Benie Rollins, et al., ) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

)

 Defendant(s).)

TO THE HONORABLE PAUL G. ROSENBLATT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

On July 29, 2003, plaintiff filed his Third Amended Complaint

(Doc. 13) which was ordered to be served on defendants Hays, Hart,

Peek (later identified as Peck) and O'Rear (Doc. 14). Summary

Judgment was granted in favor of defendant O'Rear (Doc. 58) and

defendants Hays, Hart and Peck have never been served. In an

Order filed May 23, 2005, plaintiff was given until June 3, 2005

to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for inability

to serve defendants Hays and Hart. Plaintiff has not responded to

this Order. 

On June 1, 2005, the last known home address for defendant

Peck was provided to the Court under seal (Doc. 61). On June 17,

2005, service was returned unexecuted for defendant Peck (Doc.

62). All attempts to serve defendant Peck have been exhausted.

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that defendants Hart, Hays and

Peck be dismissed without prejudice for plaintiff's failure to

Case 2:03-cv-00608-PGR Document 64 Filed 09/29/05 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

serve these defendants.

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 (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

determinations of the Magistrate Judge will be considered a waiver

of a party's right to de novo consideration of the factual issues

and will constitute 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.

DATED this 26th day of September, 2005.

Case 2:03-cv-00608-PGR Document 64 Filed 09/29/05 Page 2 of 2