Stewart # 137924 v. Unknown Parties et al

Filing 58

ORDER that the Court ACCEPTS the 57 Report and Recommendation. The 47 Motion is GRANTED, and this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute. Signed by Judge John W Sedwick on 9/18/2013. (LFIG)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Jenghiz K. Stewart, Plaintiff, vs. Medical Review Committee, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2:11-cv-00997 JWS - JFM ORDER FROM CHAMBERS [Re: Report and Recommendation at doc. 57; Dismissal of Case] I. MATTER PRESENTED At docket 57, Magistrate Judge James F. Metcalf filed a report recommending that the court grant defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute and dismiss this action with prejudice [docket 47]. The time for filing objections has run, and no objections have been filed. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW The district court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”1 When reviewing a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the district court reviews de novo conclusions of 1 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). law2 and findings of fact to which parties object.3 The court reviews for clear error uncontested findings of fact.4 III. CONCLUSION Having reviewed the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation under the standard of review articulated above, the court agrees with the magistrate judge’s findings of fact and conclusions of law. Accordingly, the court ACCEPTS the report and recommendation at docket 57. The motion at docket 47 is GRANTED, and this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute. DATED this 18th day of September 2013. /S/ JOHN W. SEDWICK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2 Barilla v. Ervin, 886 F.3d 1514, 1518 (9th Cir. 1989), overruled on other grounds by Simpson v. Lear Astronics Corp., 77 F.3d 1170, 1174 (9th Cir. 1996). 3 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 4 Taberer v. Armstrong World Indus., Inc., 954 F.2d 888, 906 (3d Cir. 1992). -2-

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?