Gonzalez-Pena v. Lopez, et al

Filing 26

ORDER The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 25 ) is accepted. Plaintiff's Accelerated Motion to Reopen Case (Doc. 24 ) is denied. This case must remain closed. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 3/20/2012. (KMG)

1

JWB

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
Luis Arnoldo Gonzalez-Pena,
9
Plaintiff,
10
vs.
11
Unknown Lopez, et al.,
12
Defendants,
13

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CV 04-3023-PHX-DGC
ORDER

14

Pending before the Court is Magistrate Judge Aspey’s Report and Recommendation

15

as to Plaintiff’s Accelerated Motion to Reopen Case (Docs. 24-25). The Magistrate Judge

16

recommended that Plaintiff’s motion be denied as futile. Plaintiff did not object to the

17

Magistrate Judge’s recommendation.

18

Because the parties did not file objections, the Court need not review any of the

19

Magistrate Judge’s determinations on dispositive matters. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.

20

R. Civ. P. 72(b); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 112 (9th Cir. 2003); Thomas

21

v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (“[Section 636(b)(1)] does not . . . require any review at all

22

. . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”). The absence of a timely objection

23

also means that error may not be assigned on appeal to any defect in the Magistrate Judge’s

24

ruling on any non-dispositive matters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) (“A party may serve and file

25

objections to the order within 14 days after being served with a copy [of the magistrate’s

26

order]. A party may not assign as error a defect in the order not timely objected to.”);

27

Simpson v. Lear Astronics Corp., 77 F.3d 1170, 1174 (9th Cir. 1996); Philipps v. GMC, 289

28

F.3d 1117, 1120-21 (9th Cir. 2002).

1

Notwithstanding the absence of an objection, the Court has reviewed the R&R and

2

finds that it is well taken because this action was dismissed nearly five years ago and there

3

is no legally cognizable reason to reopen this case.

4

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

5

(1) The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 25) is accepted.

6

(2) Plaintiff’s Accelerated Motion to Reopen Case (Doc. 24) is denied.

7

(3) This case must remain closed.

8

DATED this 20th day of March, 2012.

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28