REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

BRIDGET S. BADE, Magistrate Judge.

This matter is before the Court on its own review. On March 8, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint. (Doc. 31.) That same day, Plaintiff submitted summonses for, among others, Defendants Djinis and Tartaglia. (Docs. 37, 45.) On April 28, 2017, Plaintiff filed certificates of attempted service on Defendants Djinis and Tartaglia indicating that service on these Defendants was unexecuted. (Docs. 70, 71.) On Plaintiff's motion, the Court extended the deadline to serve the Third Amended Complaint on Defendants Djinis and Tartaglia to July 7, 2017. (Doc. 74.)

On June 6, 2017, Plaintiff filed affidavits of service by publication. (Docs 77, 78.) On August 30, 2017, the Court struck the affidavits of publication by service for failure to comply with the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. 80.) The Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause within fourteen days of the date of that order why his claims against Defendants Djinis and Tartaglia should not be dismissed for failure to serve. (Doc. 80 at 4 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).) The deadline to respond to the August 30, 2017 Order has passed and Plaintiff has neither responded to that order nor served Defendants Djinis and Tartaglia. In view of Plaintiff's failure to serve Defendants Djinis and Tartaglia, and his failure respond to the August 30, 2017 Order, the Court recommends that Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Djinis and Tartaglia be dismissed without prejudice for failure to serve pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m), and for failure to comply with court orders pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

Accordingly,

IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Court dismiss Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Djinis and Tartaglia without prejudice for failure to serve and for failure to comply with court orders pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) and 41(b).

This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure should not be filed until entry of the District Court's judgment. The parties shall have fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, 72. Thereafter, the parties have fourteen days within which to file a response to the objections. Failure 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. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Failure to file timely objections to any factual determinations of the Magistrate Judge may be considered a waiver of a party's right to appellate review of the findings of fact in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72.