Greagor v. Arpaio et al

Filing 76

ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 70 - Defendant Hunter is dismissed without prejudice. This matter shall remain referred to Magistrate Judge James F. Metcalf pursuant to Rules 72.1 and 72.2 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure for all pretrialproceedings as authorized under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). (See document for further details). Signed by Judge Steven P Logan on 10/24/16. (LAD)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 Ibrm Ibn Albinsiio Greagor, 9 10 Plaintiff, vs. 11 12 13 14 Joseph M. Arpaio, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CV-14-01955-PHX-SPL (JFM) ORDER 15 The Honorable James F. Metcalf, United States Magistrate Judge, has issued a 16 Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 70), recommending that Defendant Hunter 17 be dismissed without prejudice. Petitioner has filed an objection to the R&R (Doc. 72). 18 A district judge “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 19 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). See also Fed. R. 20 Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended 21 disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with 22 instructions.”).When a party files a timely objection to an R&R, the district judge reviews 23 de novo those portions of the R&R that have been “properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 24 72(b)(3). A proper objection requires specific written objections to the findings and 25 recommendations in the R&R. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 26 (9th Cir. 2003); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). It follows that the Court need not conduct any 27 review of portions to which no specific objection has been made. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 28 F.3d at 1121; see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (discussing the inherent 1 purpose of limited review is judicial economy). Further, a party is not entitled as of right 2 to de novo review of evidence or arguments which are raised for the first time in an 3 objection to the R&R, and the Court’s decision to consider them is discretionary. United 4 States v. Howell, 231 F.3d 615, 621-622 (9th Cir. 2000). 5 In the R&R, the Magistrate Judge recommends that Defendant Hunter be 6 dismissed pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, reasoning that 7 Plaintiff has failed to show that good cause or excusable neglect justifies a further 8 extension of time to accomplish service on him. While Plaintiff has objected to the R&R, 9 his objection does not point to any specific flaw in the Magistrate Judge’s analysis or 10 findings. Instead, he again asks for additional time to attempt to serve Defendant Hunter 11 with the information provided to him by Defendants. (Doc. 72.) 12 In light of the numerous extensions and orders to show cause issued in this case, 13 the Court does not find that Plaintiff has exercised due diligence, and the circumstances 14 identified by him do not qualify as good cause to excuse the delay. Permitting Plaintiff an 15 additional opportunity to attempt to serve Defendant Hunter at this juncture would unduly 16 delay the resolution of this case. Further, the likelihood of prejudice to Defendant Hunter 17 calls for his dismissal. As observed by the Magistrate Judge, if Defendant Hunter were 18 eventually served, he would be brought into a case that has been pending since 2014 and 19 concerns events which occurred in 2013. Therefore, the Court will adopt the R&R and dismiss Defendant Hunter. See 28 20 21 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Accordingly, 22 IT IS ORDERED: 23 1. That Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 70) is accepted 24 and adopted by the Court; 2. That Defendant Hunter is dismissed without prejudice; and 25 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 2 1 3. That this matter shall remain referred to Magistrate Judge James F. Metcalf 2 pursuant to Rules 72.1 and 72.2 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure for all pretrial 3 proceedings as authorized under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 4 Dated this 24th day of October, 2016. 5 6 Honorable Steven P. Logan United States District Judge 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?