Long #162838 v. Ryan et al

Filing 42

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)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Larry Bernard Long, No. CV-15-1265-PHX-DJH Plaintiff, 10 11 v. 12 ORDER Charles L. Ryan, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) 16 issued by United States Magistrate Judge Deborah M. Fine on February 25, 2016. (Doc. 17 38). In the R&R, Judge Fine recommends dismissing Defendant May because he has not 18 been served in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m) and LRCiv 16.2(b)(2)(B)(ii). As the 19 R&R states, service was attempted on Defendant May but was returned unexecuted on 20 August 31, 2015, indicating he was no longer employed by the Arizona Department of 21 Corrections. (Doc. 38 at 1-2). No forwarding address was provided. Judge Fine then 22 granted Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant May’s last known address under seal and 23 multiple extensions of time to complete service. 24 unsuccessful and Defendant May was never served. Those efforts, however, were 25 Judge Fine advised the parties that they had fourteen days to file objections and 26 that the failure to file timely objections "will be considered a waiver of a party’s right to 27 de novo appellate consideration of the issues.” (Doc. 38 at 3-4) (citing United States v. 28 Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc)). The parties have not filed 1 objections and the time to do so has expired. Absent any objections, the Court is not 2 required to review the findings and recommendations in the R&R. See Thomas v. Arn, 3 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1989) (The relevant provision of the Federal Magistrates Act, 28 4 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), “does not on its face require any review at all . . . of any issue that 5 is not the subject of an objection.”); Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121 (same); Fed.R.Civ.P. 6 72(b)(3) (“The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s 7 disposition that has been properly objected to.”). 8 Nonetheless, the Court has reviewed the R&R and agrees with its findings and 9 recommendations. The Court will, therefore, accept the R&R and dismiss Defendant 10 May from this action. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) (“A judge of the court may accept, 11 reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the 12 magistrate judge.”); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3) (same). 13 Accordingly, 14 IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Fine's R&R (Doc. 38) is accepted and 15 adopted as the order of this Court. 16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant May is dismissed from this action. 17 Dated this 29th day of March, 2016. 18 19 20 21 Honorable Diane J. Humetewa United States District Judge 22 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?