Graham v. Continental Bancorp et al

Filing 11

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - Accordingly, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Court dismiss this matter. This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. (See document for complete details). Signed by Magistrate Judge David K Duncan on 5/10/18. (SLQ)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Michael Graham,

No. CV-17-4806-PHX-DKD

Plaintiff,

10
11

v.

12

Continental Bancorp, et al.,

13

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Defendants.

14
15

TO THE HONORABLE STEPHEN M. MCNAMEE, SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE:

16

The Complaint in this matter was filed December 29, 2017. On April 9, 2018, the

17

Court issued an order directing the Plaintiff to show good cause why this matter should

18

not be dismissed for failure to serve Defendants pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal

19

Rules of Civil Procedure (Doc. 10). In that order Plaintiff was warned that failure to

20

comply with the Court’s order may result in the dismissal of this matter. Plaintiff has

21

failed to comply with the Court’s order and has not served Defendants in this matter.

22

Accordingly, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Court dismiss this matter.

23

This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth

24

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules

25

of Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district court’s judgment.

26

The parties shall have fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of this

27

recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the Court. See, 28

28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Rules 72, 6(a), 6(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thereafter,

1

the parties have fourteen days within which to file a response to the objections. Failure

2

timely to file objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation may

3

result in the acceptance of the Report and Recommendation by the district court without

4

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

5

Failure timely to file objections to any factual determinations of the Magistrate Judge will

6

be considered a waiver of a party’s right to appellate review of the findings of fact in an

7

order or judgment entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. See

8

Rule72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

9

Dated this 10th day of May, 2018.

10
11
12
13
14

cc:

SMM

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-2-