Phipps #218598 v. Ryan et al

Filing 20

ORDER - That Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 19 ) is accepted. The Clerk shall enter judgment dismissing plaintiff's Complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1 ) without prejudice. The Clerk shall terminate this action. Signed by Judge Neil V Wake on 06/23/15. (ATD)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Jeremiah Phipps, No. CV-14-02205-PHX-NVW Plaintiff, 10 11 v. 12 ORDER Charles L. Ryan, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 Pending before the court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of 16 Magistrate Judge Bridget S. Bade (Doc. 19) regarding Plaintiff’s failure to comply with 17 the Court’s order (Doc. 17 at 7) in his failure to return to the Court, within twenty-one 18 days, completed service packets for service on Defendant Churchwell. Thereafter the 19 Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause on or before May 15, 2015, why this matter should 20 not be dismissed pursuant to Fed.R.CivP. 41(b) (“[i]f the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to 21 comply with [the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure] or a court order . . . ). (Doc. 18.) 22 Plaintiff has failed to respond to the Court’s April 24, 2015 Order and failed to return a 23 completed service packet to the Court. 24 The R&R recommends the Court dismiss this matter without prejudice for failure 25 to comply with Court orders pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). The Magistrate Judge 26 advised the parties that they had fourteen days to file objections to the R&R. (R&R at 2 27 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 and 72.). No objections were filed. 28 Because the parties did not file objections, the court need not review any of the 1 Magistrate Judge’s determinations on dispositive matters. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); 2 Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003); 3 Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (“[Section 636(b)(1)] does not . . . require any 4 review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”). The absence of a 5 timely objection also means that error may not be assigned on appeal to any defect in the 6 rulings of the Magistrate Judge on any non-dispositive matters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) (“A 7 party may serve and file objections to the order within 14 days after being served with a 8 copy [of the magistrate’s order]. A party may not assign as error a defect in the order not 9 timely objected to.”); Simpson v. Lear Astronics Corp., 77 F.3d 1170, 1174 (9th Cir. 10 1996); Phillips v. GMC, 289 F.3d 1117, 1120-21 (9th Cir. 2002). 11 Notwithstanding the absence of an objection, the court has reviewed the R&R and 12 finds that it is well taken. The court will accept the R&R and dismiss this matter without 13 prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that the district court “may accept, reject, 14 or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the 15 magistrate”). 16 17 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 19) is accepted. 18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court enter judgment 19 dismissing plaintiff’s Complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1) without 20 prejudice. The Clerk shall terminate this action. 21 Dated this 23rd day of June, 2015. 22 23 24 Neil V. Wake United States District Judge 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?