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 

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Michael Lee Beitman, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Correct Clear Solutions, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-17-03829-PHX-JAT (BSB)

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) from the 

Magistrate Judge (Doc. 49) recommending that Defendant Bennie Rollins be dismissed for 

failure to timely serve. Plaintiff has objected to the R&R. The Court will review the 

portions of the R&R to which there is an objection de novo. United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 

328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (“statute makes it clear that the district judge 

must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is 

made, but not otherwise” (emphasis in original)). 

 Plaintiff does not dispute that Defendant Rollins had not been served. Plaintiff 

further does not dispute that the time for service has expired. Instead Plaintiff claims that 

the Court should do more to help him accomplish served. 

 As recounted in the R&R, Defendant Rollins no longer works for, or with, the other 

Defendants in this case. (Doc. 49). Nonetheless, the Magistrate Judge ordered the 

appearing Defendants to submit Defendant Rollins’ last known address under seal. (Id.). 

Using that address, the Marshals attempted to serve Defendant Rollins. (Id.). The 
- 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 

Marshals were advised that Defendant Rollins does not reside at the address provided. 

(Id.). Having exhausted all avenues for discovering Defendant Rollins’ address, the 

Magistrate Judge recommends that Defendant Rollins be dismissed, without prejudice. 

 Plaintiff objects arguing that this Court could take a variety of actions to aid 

Plaintiff. Specifically, Plaintiff suggests that the Court could appoint him counsel, make 

the attorneys for the other Defendants accept service for Mr. Rollins, or order the Marshals 

to locate Mr. Rollins. None of these options are required or appropriate. 

 First, the Magistrate Judge has already denied appointment of counsel (Doc. 55) and 

this Court agrees with that decision. Moreover, investigative services are not the purpose 

of appointing counsel. (Id.) Second, the Court cannot force attorneys to accept service for 

someone they do not represent. Third, the Marshals are not investigators for Plaintiff. 

While the Court understands there are limits to Plaintiff’s resources in prison, the Marshals 

are not his staff to investigate and pursue his private litigation interests. 

 Thus, the Court agrees with the R&R that on this record, there is no likelihood of 

accomplishing service. Accordingly, dismissal without prejudice is the appropriate 

remedy. Therefore, 

IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 49) is accepted; the 

objections (Doc. 53) are overruled; Defendant Rollins is dismissed for failure to serve, 

without prejudice. 

 Dated this 26th day of February, 2019.