Long #162838 v. Ryan et al
ORDER: IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Fine's R&R (Doc. 38 ) is accepted and adopted as the order of this Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant May is dismissed from this action. Signed by Judge Diane J Humetewa on 3/29/2016. (REK)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Larry Bernard Long,
Charles L. Ryan, et al.,
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”)
issued by United States Magistrate Judge Deborah M. Fine on February 25, 2016. (Doc.
38). In the R&R, Judge Fine recommends dismissing Defendant May because he has not
been served in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m) and LRCiv 16.2(b)(2)(B)(ii). As the
R&R states, service was attempted on Defendant May but was returned unexecuted on
August 31, 2015, indicating he was no longer employed by the Arizona Department of
Corrections. (Doc. 38 at 1-2). No forwarding address was provided. Judge Fine then
granted Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant May’s last known address under seal and
multiple extensions of time to complete service.
unsuccessful and Defendant May was never served.
Those efforts, however, were
Judge Fine advised the parties that they had fourteen days to file objections and
that the failure to file timely objections "will be considered a waiver of a party’s right to
de novo appellate consideration of the issues.” (Doc. 38 at 3-4) (citing United States v.
Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc)). The parties have not filed
objections and the time to do so has expired. Absent any objections, the Court is not
required to review the findings and recommendations in the R&R. See Thomas v. Arn,
474 U.S. 140, 149 (1989) (The relevant provision of the Federal Magistrates Act, 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), “does not on its face require any review at all . . . of any issue that
is not the subject of an objection.”); Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121 (same); Fed.R.Civ.P.
72(b)(3) (“The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s
disposition that has been properly objected to.”).
Nonetheless, the Court has reviewed the R&R and agrees with its findings and
recommendations. The Court will, therefore, accept the R&R and dismiss Defendant
May from this action. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) (“A judge of the court may accept,
reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the
magistrate judge.”); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3) (same).
IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Fine's R&R (Doc. 38) is accepted and
adopted as the order of this Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant May is dismissed from this action.
Dated this 29th day of March, 2016.
Honorable Diane J. Humetewa
United States District Judge
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?