Halloum v. Ryan et al
Filing
40
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 34 . Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m), the claims as against defendant Itenberg are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Robert C Broomfield on 11/16/11. (DMT)
1
WO
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
9
10
11
12
AMMAR DEAN HALLOUM,
13
Plaintiff,
14
vs.
15
CHARLES L. RYAN, et al.,
16
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. CIV 11-0097-PHX-RCB
O R D E R
17
18
Presently pending before the court is the Report and
19
Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Jay R. Irwin
20
(“R & R”) (Doc. 34), recommending that this action be dismissed
21
without prejudice as to defendant Itenberg.
22
discussed in that R & R, the Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal
23
pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m) because “[p]laintiff . . . failed to
24
show good cause or excusable neglect to justify an extension of
25
time to complete service on Defendant Itenberg.”
26
at 4:15-16.
27
28
As fully and soundly
R & R (Doc. 34)
The R & R was filed and served upon the parties on September
21, 2011.
The R & R explicitly advised the parties that, pursuant
1
to Fed.R.Civ.P. 72, they “shall have fourteen (14) days from the
2
date of service of a copy of this recommendation within which to
3
file specific written objections with the Court.”
4
None of the parties have filed objections to that R & R, and the
5
fourteen day time frame for so doing has passed.1
6
Id. at 4:25–26.
When reviewing an R & R issued by a Magistrate Judge, this
7
court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the
8
findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28
9
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
“Of course, de novo review of a R & R is only
10
required when an objection is made to the R & R[.]”
11
Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n. 13 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing United
12
States v. Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en
13
banc)).
14
[Federal Magistrates Act] requires a district judge to review, de
15
novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves
16
accept as correct.”
17
omitted).
18
Supreme Court has found that that “statute does not on its face
19
require any review at all, by either the district court or the
20
court of appeals, of any issue that is not the subject of an
21
objection.”
22
L.Ed.2d 435 (1985).
23
court has not conducted a de novo review of the pending R & R
24
because the parties did not file any objections thereto.
25
Wang v.
That is because “[n]either the Constitution nor the
Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121 (citations
Indeed, construing the Federal Magistrates Act, the
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88
Consistent with the foregoing authority, the
Having reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s R & R, and no
26
27
28
1
This takes into account the additional three days allotted to plaintiff
in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(d) because, as the docket sheet indicates, he was
served by mail.
-2-
1
objections having been filed by any party thereto, the court hereby
2
incorporates and adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
3
Recommendation in its entirety (Doc. 34).
4
IT IS ORDERED that:
5
6
7
In accordance therewith,
(1) pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m), the claims as against
defendant Itenberg are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
DATED this 16th day of November, 2011.
8
9
10
11
12
13
Copies to all counsel of record and plaintiff, pro se
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?