Wheeler v. Arizona, State of et al
ORDER that the 82 Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED as an Order of this Court. ORDERED that pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) and 41(b), Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Djinis and Tartaglia are DISMISSED without prejudice. Signed by Judge Diane J Humetewa on 10/13/2017. (See Order for details.) (LFIG)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
No. CV-16-02326-PHX-DJH (BSB)
State of Arizona, et al.,
On September 19, 2017, United States Magistrate Judge Bridget S. Bade filed a
report recommending ( “R&R”) dismissal of “Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants
Djinis and Tartaglia this action without prejudice for failure to serve to serve and for
failure to comply with court orders pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) and 41(b).” (Doc. 82
at 2:8-9). In so recommending, Magistrate Judge Bade explicitly advised the parties that
they “shall have fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation
within which to file specific written objections with the Court.” (Doc. 82 at 2:13-14)
(citations omitted). Magistrate Judge Bade was equally explicit that: (1) “[f]ailure to file
timely objections to the any factual determinations of [her] Report and Recommendation
may result in the acceptance of the Report and Recommendation by the District Court
without further review[;]” and “[f]ailure to file timely objections to any factual
determinations of the Magistrate Judge may be considered a waiver of a party’s right to
appellate review of the findings of fact in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the
Magistrate Judge’s recommendation.” (Id. at 2:16-22) (citations omitted).
In accordance with the foregoing, the parties had until October 6, 2017, by which
to timely file objections to the R&R. The parties did not do so. Absent any timely
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.”); United States v.
Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (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 recommendation. The Court will, therefore, accept the R&R
in its entirety. 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 Bade’s R&R (Doc. 82) is ACCEPTED
and ADOPTED as an Order of this Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) and 41(b),
Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Djinis and Tartaglia are DISMISSED without
Dated this 13th day of October, 2017.
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?