Renteria v. Wexford Health Sources Incorporated et al

Filing 84

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. It is ordered that Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge 76 is accepted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court enter judgment dismissing without prejudice Plaintiff's complaint against Defendants Unknown Parties, named as John Does 1-5, Jane Does 1-5, ABC Corporations I-X, ZYX Partnerships 1-5, and Sole Proprietorships 1-5. Signed by Judge Neil V Wake on 8/13/2015. (ACL)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Jose Renteria,

10

No. CV-14-01927-PHX-NVW (JFM)
Plaintiff,

ORDER

11

vs.

12

Wesford Health Sources, Incorporated, et
al.,

13
14

Defendants.

15

Pending before the court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of

16

Magistrate Judge James F. Metcalf (Doc. 76) regarding Plaintiff’s failure to show good

17

cause or excusable neglect to justify an extension of time to complete service on

18

Defendants Unknown Parties.

19

Defendants Unknown Parties, named as John Does 1-5, Jane Does 1-5, ABC

20

Corporations I-X, ZYX Partnerships 1-5, and Sole Proprietorships 1-5, be dismissed

21

without prejudice. The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had fourteen days

22

to file objections to the R&R. (R&R at 4 (citing Rule 72, Fed. R. Crim. P.)). No

23

objections were filed.

The R&R recommends that pursuant to Rule 4(m),

24

Because the parties did not file objections, the court need not review any of the

25

Magistrate Judge’s determinations on dispositive matters. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);

26

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003);

27

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (“[Section 636(b)(1)] does not . . . require any

28

review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”). The absence of a

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

timely objection also means that error may not be assigned on appeal to any defect in the
rulings of the Magistrate Judge on any non-dispositive matters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) (“A
party may serve and file objections to the order within 14 days after being served with a
copy [of the magistrate’s order]. A party may not assign as error a defect in the order not
timely objected to.”); Simpson v. Lear Astronics Corp., 77 F.3d 1170, 1174
(9th Cir. 1996); Phillips v. GMC, 289 F.3d 1117, 1120–21 (9th Cir. 2002).
Notwithstanding the absence of an objection, the court has reviewed the R&R and
finds that it is well taken. The court will accept the R&R and dismiss Defendants
Unknown Parties, named as John Does 1-5, Jane Does 1-5, ABC Corporations I-X, ZYX
Partnerships 1-5, and Sole Proprietorships 1-5. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that
the district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate”).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Report and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge (Doc. 76) is accepted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court enter judgment
dismissing without prejudice Plaintiff’s complaint against Defendants Unknown Parties,
named as John Does 1-5, Jane Does 1-5, ABC Corporations I-X, ZYX Partnerships 1-5,
and Sole Proprietorships 1-5.
Dated this 13th day of August, 2015.

20
21
22
Neil V. Wake
United States District Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28
-2