Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_07-cv-00627/USCOURTS-azd-4_07-cv-00627-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 28:7422 Appeal from Administrative Decision

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Glenn Velardi, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

Michael J. Astrue, 

Defendant. ______________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV 07-627 TUC-RCC (JM)

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION

In the Scheduling Order, Plaintiff was ordered to file any desired motions within 30

days of the filing of the answer. Docket No. 8. Plaintiff has failed to do so and has not

requested a time extension. Plaintiff was warned, “[a]bsent any pending dispositive motions,

this case may be dismissed as prescribed in Local Rule LRCiv. 41.1 Rule of Practice.” Id.

Local Rule Civil 41.1 allows for the dismissal for want of prosecution an action in which

there have been “no proceedings for six (6) or more months . . .” No action has occurred in

this case in more than six months and the required motions have not been filed. 

Based on the foregoing and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Rule 72.1 1.17(d)(2),

of the Local Rules – Civil 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 an order to show cause and, if cause is not established, dismiss this action with

prejudice.

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. 

Case 4:07-cv-00627-RCC Document 14 Filed 02/09/09 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

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 07-627-TUCRCC. 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.

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

DATED this 9th day of February, 2009.

Case 4:07-cv-00627-RCC Document 14 Filed 02/09/09 Page 2 of 2