Roop v. Ryan et al

Filing 23

ORDER that pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m), the claims as against defendant Credio are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Senior Judge Robert C Broomfield on 11/8/12. (TLJ)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9
10
11
12

Charles H. Roop,

13
14
15
16

Plaintiff,
vs.
Charles L. Ryan, et al.
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CIV 12-0270 PHX RCB (JFM)
O R D E R

17
18

Presently pending before the court is the Report and

19

Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge James L.

20

Metcalf (“R & R”) (Doc. 22), recommending that this action be

21

dismissed without prejudice as to defendant Manuel Joseph

22

Credio. As fully and soundly discussed in that R & R, the

23

Magistrate Judge recommends dismissal pursuant to

24

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

25

good cause or excusable neglect to justify an extension of

26

time to complete service on Defendant Credio.” R & R

27

(Doc. 22) at 3:6-7.

28

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

1

October 18, 2012.

2

that, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 72, they “shall have fourteen

3

(14) days from the date of service of a copy of this

4

recommendation within which to file specific written

5

objections with the Court.”

6

parties have filed objections to that R & R, and the fourteen

7

day time frame for so doing has passed.1

8
9

The R & R explicitly advised the parties

Id. at 3:16-17. None of the

When reviewing an R & R issued by a Magistrate Judge,
this court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in

10

part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate

11

judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). “Of course, de novo review of

12

a R & R is only required when an objection is made to the

13

R & R[.]” Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n. 13 (9th Cir.

14

2005) (citing United States v. Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114,

15

1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc)). That is because “[n]either

16

the Constitution nor the [Federal Magistrates Act] requires a

17

district judge to review, de novo, findings and

18

recommendations that the parties themselves accept as

19

correct.” Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121 (citations omitted).

20

Indeed, construing the Federal Magistrates Act, the Supreme

21

Court has found that that “statute does not on its face

22

require any review at all, by either the district court or

23

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

24

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

25

466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985).

Consistent with the foregoing

26
1

27

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 electronic means.

28
-2-

1

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

2

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

3

objections thereto.

4

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

5

objections having been filed by any party thereto, the court

6

hereby incorporates and adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report

7

and Recommendation in its entirety (Doc. 22). In accordance

8

therewith, IT IS ORDERED that:

9
10
11

(1) pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m), the claims as against
defendant Credio are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
DATED this 8th day of November, 2012.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

Copies to counsel of record and plaintiff pro se

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-