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

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

CELERINO CARRASCO,

 Plaintiff,

v.

CORRECTIONAL SERVICE

CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C06-5084RJB

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION

Noted for December 22, 2006

This matter is before the court on plaintiff’s failure to submit a response to the court’s order to

show cause. After carefully reviewing the record, the undersigned recommends that the case be dismissed

for lack of prosecution.

 The complaint in this matter was submitted on or about January 30, 2006. Plaintiff submitted an

application to proceed in forma pauperis a few days later, on February 9, 2006. At that time Plaintiff was

in custody of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) agency at the Northwest Detention

Center in Tacoma. The record reflects that Plaintiff not been in custody of the ICE since February 28,

2006, when he was deported to Mexico. Based on his release, Plaintiff filed an updated application to

proceed in forma pauperis as directed by the court, and the court granted the application on July 20, 2006. 

On the same date, Plaintiff submitted an Amended Complaint to the clerk of the court. According to Rule

4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, plaintiff was required to properly serve defendants with a

copy of the original complaint and amended complaint along with a summons and file the required proof of

Case 3:06-cv-05084-RJB Document 28 Filed 11/30/06 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

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Page - 2

service by not later than November 21, 2006. 

On October 30, 2006, the undersigned reviewed the record and noted defendants had not filed an

answer to Complaint. On further review the court found plaintiff had not filed proof of service of the

original complaint or summonses. Accordingly, it appeared plaintiff had not properly served the complaint

in this matter. The court directed Plaintiff to file proof of service or show cause why this matter should not

be dismissed for lack of prosecution by not later than November 22, 2006. The court has not received the

required proof of service, or any other response or pleadings from plaintiff in this matter.

Based on the court record and the facts described above, the Court should dismiss Plaintiff’s causes

of action without prejudice for failure to prosecute. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rule 72(b) of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties shall have ten (10) days from service of this Report to file

written objections. See also Fed.R.Civ.P. 6. Failure to file objections will result in a waiver of those

objections for purposes of appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Accommodating the time limit

imposed by Rule 72(b), the clerk is directed to set the matter for consideration on December 22, 2006, as

noted in the caption.

DATED this 30th day of November, 2006.

 /s/ J. Kelley Arnold J. Kelley Arnold

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:06-cv-05084-RJB Document 28 Filed 11/30/06 Page 2 of 2