Padilla v. Gandara et al
ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's 7 Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED by the Court. FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Rule 41(b) and Rule 4(m), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this action is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice. Signed by Judge Paul G Rosenblatt on 10/22/08. (SAT)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Gilbert Anthony Padilla, Plaintiff, v. Gilbert Gandara, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
CV 08-0250-PHX-PGR (MEA) ORDER
The Court having reviewed de novo the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Aspey and no party having filed any objection to the Report and Recommendation, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 7) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED by the Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Rule 41(b) and Rule 4(m), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this action is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice.1 DATED this 22nd day of October, 2008.
The civil docket in this matter indicates that Plaintiff has failed to return service packets to the Court, acquire a waiver of service from Defendants, or to complete service of process on Defendants. On June 6, 2008, the Court allowed Plaintiff until July 7, 2008, to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for Plaintiff's failure to comply with the Court's order of March 27, 2008, and Plaintiff's failure to effect service of process on Defendants as required by the Court's order and Rule 4, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff has failed to show cause for his failure to comply with the Court's orders and to effect service of process on Defendants.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?