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)

Download PDF
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 

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?