Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02913/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02913-0/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

JASON LEE BARLOW, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIV 04-02913 PHX EHC (MEA)

)

JOSEPH M. ARPAIO, MARICOPA ) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, ) FOR DISMISSAL

MARICOPA COUNTY BOARD OF ) WITHOUT PREJUDICE

SUPERVISORS, CAPTAIN CAMPARO, )

)

Defendants. )

_______________________________)

Plaintiff filed his complaint on December 16, 2004.

On May 2, 2005, the Court issued an order requiring Plaintiff

to complete and return a service packet for Defendants to the

Court and warning Plaintiff that his failure to timely comply

with the provisions of the Court’s orders would result in the

dismissal of the complaint pursuant to Rule 41(b), Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure.

The civil docket in this matter reflects that, as of

September 30, 2005, when Plaintiff notified the Court of his

change of address, no further activity has occurred in this

case. The parties have not engaged in discovery.

The Local Rules of the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona provide that “cases which have had

no proceedings for six (6) or more months may be dismissed by

Case 2:04-cv-02913-EHC Document 16 Filed 04/24/06 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- 

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.” United States

District Court for the District of Arizona Local Rule 2.6. 

On March 24, 2006, the Court allowed Plaintiff until

April 21, 2006, to show cause why this case should not be

dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute his case for a

period of six months. Plaintiff has failed to show cause for

his failure to prosecute his claims. 

THEREFORE, IT IS RECOMMENDED that this case be

dismissed without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to show

cause for his failure to prosecute his claims.

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. ReynaCase 2:04-cv-02913-EHC Document 16 Filed 04/24/06 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- 

Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied,

540 U.S. 900 (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 24th day of April, 2006.

Case 2:04-cv-02913-EHC Document 16 Filed 04/24/06 Page 3 of 3