Crago v. Clark et al
Filing
85
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER ADOPTING 82 Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. Defendants Clark and Jorgenson are hereby dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk shall enter judgment in favorof Defendants and terminate this action. Signed by Senior Judge Stephen M McNamee on 4/26/13. (LSP)
1
WO
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
Earl Felton Crago, Jr.,
10
11
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Petitioner,
vs.
12
Charles L. Ryan, et al.,
13
Respondents.
14
No. CV-11-2368-PHX-SMM (JFM)
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND
ORDER
15
16
Pending before the Court is Magistrate Judge James F. Metcalf’s Report and
17
Recommendation advising this Court that Defendants Clark and Jorgenson be dismissed
18
without prejudice from Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint. (Doc. 82.) Petitioner has
19
filed no objections to the Report and Recommendation. The Court will affirm Judge
20
Metcalf’s Report and Recommendation.
21
STANDARD OF REVIEW
22
When reviewing a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, this Court must
23
“make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is
24
made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
25
recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also Baxter
26
v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch.
27
Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983)). Failure to object to a Magistrate Judge’s
28
recommendation relieves the Court of conducting de novo review of the Magistrate Judge’s
1
factual findings; the Court then may decide the dispositive motion on the applicable law.
2
Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979) (citing Campbell v. United States
3
Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196 (9th Cir. 1974)).
4
By failing to object to a Report and Recommendation, a party waives its right to
5
challenge the Magistrate’s factual findings, but not necessarily the Magistrate's legal
6
conclusions. Baxter, 923 F.2d at 1394; see also Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th
7
Cir. 1998) (failure to object to Magistrate’s legal conclusion “is a factor to be weighed in
8
considering the propriety of finding waiver of an issue on appeal”); Martinez v. Ylst, 951
9
F.2d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing McCall v. Andrus, 628 F.2d 1185, 1187 (9th Cir.
10
1980)).
DISCUSSION1
11
12
After conducting a thorough legal analysis, the Magistrate Judge concluded that
13
Petitioner’s claims against Defendants Clark and Jorgenson are subject to dismissal without
14
prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to effect service. (Doc. 82.) The Magistrate Judge reviewed
15
Petitioner’s failure to properly serve these Defendants, as well as his failure to show good
16
cause or excusable neglect to justify his failure. (Id. at 2-3.) Petitioner raises no objection
17
to the Magistrate Judge’s factual or legal determinations, and after review the Court finds that
18
the Magistrate Judge properly concluded that Petitioner’s failure to timely serve these
19
Defendants justifies their dismissal without prejudice from Plaintiff’s suit.
20
21
Therefore, the Court hereby incorporates and adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report
and Recommendation. (Doc. 82.)
22
CONCLUSION
23
For the reasons set forth above,
24
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation
25
26
of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 82).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Clark and Jorgenson are hereby
27
1
28
The factual and procedural history of this case is set forth in the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 82).
-2-
1
2
3
4
dismissed without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to enter judgment in favor
of Defendants and terminate this action.
DATED this 26th day of April, 2013.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
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?