United States District Court for the District of Arizona, 2022

Cammilletti v. Shinn

Cammilletti v. Shinn
United States District Court for the District of Arizona · Decided September 13, 2022
Cammilletti v. Shinn

Trial Court Opinion

6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Adolph Rocco Cammilletti, No. CV-20-02150-PHX-DJH 10 Plaintiff, ORDER v. Elijah Jordan, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 Before the Court is a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) from the Honorable Magistrate Judge Deborah M. Fine (Doc. 47), filed on August 22, 2022. Judge Fine recommends dismissal of Defendant Morales, without prejudice, due to Plaintiff’s failure to timely serve him with the Complaint and Summons, and dismissal of Plaintiff’s action without prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to follow the Court’s Order that he notify the Court of his change of address. (Id. at 15). The R&R notified the parties that they had fourteen days from being served with a copy of the R&R to file specific written objections with the Court. (Id.) The R&R further informed the parties that “[f]ailure to file timely objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report and Recommendation by the District Court without further review.” (Id.) 26 No objections have been filed. Absent any objections, the Court is not required to review the findings and recommendations in the R&R. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1989) (the relevant provision of the Federal Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. 1|| § 636(b)(1)(C), “does not on its face require any review at all... of any issue that is not 2|| the subject of an objection”). The docket reflects that the Clerk has attempted to mail a || copy of the Order (Doc. 47) to Plaintiff at the address on file. Like all filings since May 2, 2022, it has been returned undeliverable. (Doc. 49). As the R&R states, “it is not the || Court’s duty to determine Plaintiff's new mailing address.” (Doc. 47 at 14 citing Carey v. 6|| Kind, 856 F.2d 1439, 1441 (9th Cir. 1988)). It is Plaintiffs duty to prosecute his case. □□ Despite the many reminders and warnings of dismissal, Plaintiff has failed to either serve || Defendant Morales or notify the Court of his change of address. The Court agrees that □□ dismissal is warranted under these circumstances.

10 Accordingly, 11 IT IS ORDERED that Judge Fine’s R&R (Doc. 47) is adopted as the Order of the Court. This matter is dismissed. The Clerk is kindly directed to dismiss Defendant || Morales and terminate this matter, without prejudice.

14 Dated this 12th day of September, 2022.

16 oC. . fo □□ V7 norable' Diang/4. Hurfetewa 18 United States District Judge _2-

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.