From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Davis v. Penzone

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Feb 10, 2020
No. CV-17-01912-PHX-SMB (CDB) (D. Ariz. Feb. 10, 2020)

Opinion

No. CV-17-01912-PHX-SMB (CDB)

02-10-2020

John Leo Davis, Plaintiff, v. Paul Penzone, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of Magistrate Judge Camille D. Bibles (Doc. 137). The R&R recommends that Defendants Corprew and Davidson be dismissed without prejudice for failure to serve. The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had fourteen days to file objections to the R&R. (R&R at 21) (citing Rule 72(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; Rule 8(b), Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings). Petitioner filed objections on January 21, 2020 (Doc. 140).

The Court has considered the objections and reviewed the Report and Recommendation de novo. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that the court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objections are made). Specifically, Plaintiff argues that it is Defendants fault because they are "playing games". Plaintiff has provided no evidence to suggest that any information provided by Defendants, pursuant to Court order, was untruthful or that Defendants actually know where Defendants Corprew and Davidson actually live. Defendants Corprew and Davidson never worked as employees for Correctional Health Services. This Court has gone above what is required or normally done to assist Plaintiff in serving Defendants Corprew and Davidson to no avail. Plaintiff has been granted many extensions of time and these defendants have not been served in the 2 ½ years that this case has been pending.

The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge's determinations, accepts the recommended decision within the meaning of Rule 72(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., and overrules Petitioner's objections. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that the district court "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate").

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 137) is accepted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that there being no just reason for delay, the Clerk of the Court enter judgment dismissing Defendants Corprew and Davidson without prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Certificate of Appealability is granted.

Dated this 10th day of February, 2020.

/s/_________

Honorable Susan M. Brnovich

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Davis v. Penzone

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Feb 10, 2020
No. CV-17-01912-PHX-SMB (CDB) (D. Ariz. Feb. 10, 2020)
Case details for

Davis v. Penzone

Case Details

Full title:John Leo Davis, Plaintiff, v. Paul Penzone, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Date published: Feb 10, 2020

Citations

No. CV-17-01912-PHX-SMB (CDB) (D. Ariz. Feb. 10, 2020)