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-