Murray v. Corrections Corporation of America Incorporated et al

Filing 39

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, adopting the Magistrate Judge's 36 Report and Recommendation, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m), the claims as against defendants Joe Stichen and Lorie LaClare are dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Senior Judge Robert C Broomfield on 11/12/12. (REW)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9
10
11
12

Dwight Murray,

13

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,

14

vs.

15

Corrections Corp. of
America, Inc., et al.

16

Defendants.
17
18

No. CIV-11-2210 PHX RCB (JFM)
O R D E R

Currently pending before the court is the Report and

19

Recommendation

20

Metcalf (“R & R”) (Doc. 36), recommending that this action be

21

dismissed without prejudice as to defendants Joe Stichen and

22

Lorie LaClare.

23

the

24

Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m) because “[p]laintiff . . . failed to show good

25

cause or excusable neglect to justify an extension of time to

26

complete service on Defendants Stichen and LaClare.” R & R (Doc.

27

36) at 3:12–13.

28

Magistrate

of

United

States

Magistrate

Judge

James

F.

As fully and soundly discussed in that R & R,
Judge

recommended

dismissal

pursuant

to

The R & R was filed and served upon the parties on October

1

23, 2012. The R & R explicitly advised the parties that,

2

pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 72, they “shall have fourteen (14) days

3

from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within

4

which to file specific written objections with the Court.”

5

at 3:21–23. None of the parties have filed objections to that

6

R & R, and the fourteen day time frame for so doing has passed.

7

When reviewing an R & R issued by a Magistrate Judge, this

8

court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the

9

findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28

10

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). “Of course, de novo review of a R & R is

11

only required when an objection is made to the R & R[.]” Wang

12

v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n. 13 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing

13

United States v. Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)

14

(en banc)). That is because “[n]either the Constitution nor the

15

[Federal Magistrates Act] requires a district judge to review,

16

de

17

themselves accept as correct.” Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121

18

(citations omitted). Indeed, construing the Federal Magistrates

19

Act, the Supreme Court has found that that “statute does not on

20

its face require any review at all, by either the district court

21

or the court of appeals, of any issue that is not the subject

22

of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149, 106 S.Ct.

23

466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). Consistent with the foregoing

24

authority, the court has not conducted a de novo review of the

25

pending R & R because the parties did not file any objections

26

thereto.

novo,

findings

and

recommendations

that

the

Id.

parties

27

Having reviewed the Magistrate Judge's R & R, and no

28

objections having been filed by any party thereto, the court
-2-

1

hereby incorporates and adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and

2

Recommendation

3

therewith, IT IS ORDERED that:

in

its

entirety

(Doc.

36).

In

accordance

4

(1) pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m), the claims as against

5

defendants Joe Stichen and Lorie LaClare are DISMISSED WITHOUT

6

PREJUDICE.

7

DATED this 12th day of November, 2012.

8
9
10
11
12
13
14

Copies to counsel of record

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-