Shabie v. Ryan et al

Filing 60

ORDER that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, (Doc. 54 ), is ADOPTED AND ACCEPTED; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Paula Carpenter are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; Defendant Paula Carpenter is dismissed. Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 3/31/2015. (KMG)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Philbert Shabie,

No. CV-12-02053-PHX-JAT
Plaintiff,

10
11

v.

12

ORDER

Charles L. Ryan, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15
16
17

Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation from the Magistrate

18

Judge (“R&R”), (Doc. 54), recommending that this case be dismissed as to Defendant

19

Paula Carpenter for Plaintiff’s failure to serve that defendant.

20

Neither party filed objections to the R&R.1 Accordingly, the Court hereby accepts

21

the R&R. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (finding that district courts are

22

not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an

23

objection” (emphasis added)); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th

24

Cir. 2003) (en banc) (“statute makes it clear that the district judge must review the

25
26
27
28

1

Subsequent to issuing the R&R, the Magistrate Judge issued an order to show
cause as to why this case should not be dismissed entirely for Plaintiff’s failure to
prosecute. (Doc. 56). Defendant responded to the order to the show cause. Out of an
abundance of caution, the Court reviewed Plaintiff’s response to the order to show cause
to ensure it did not contain objections to the R&R. The response makes no mention of the
R&R, its reasoning, or Plaintiff’s failure to serve Defendant Carpenter.

1

magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not

2

otherwise” (emphasis in original)); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F.Supp.2d 1219,

3

1226 (D. Ariz. 2003).

4

The Court emphasizes that the R&R only recommends dismissing Plaintiff’s

5

claims against Defendant Carpenter, and therefore does not affect Plaintiff’s claims

6

against the remaining Defendants.

7

Therefore,

8

IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation,

9

(Doc. 54), is ADOPTED AND ACCEPTED;

10

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Paula

11

Carpenter are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; Defendant Paula Carpenter is

12

dismissed.

13

Dated this 31st day of March, 2015.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-2-