Jimenez v. Arpaio et al

Filing 20

ORDER: Magistrate Judge Bade's R&R 18 is accepted and adopted as the order of this Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and that the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge Diane J Humetewa on 11/16/2017. (REK)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Esteban Jimenez No. CV-16-3223-PHX-DJH Plaintiff, 10 11 v. 12 ORDER Joseph M. Arpaio, 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 Bridget S. Bade on June 30, 2017. (Doc. 18). 17 In the R&R, Judge Bade explains that Plaintiff has failed to notify the Court of changes 18 to his address despite being ordered to do so in a screening order back on December 30, 19 2016. (Doc. 10 at 6). As a result, mail sent to Plaintiff has been returned to the Court as 20 undeliverable. (See Doc. 14). On June 5, 2017, the Court issued an order directing 21 Plaintiff to show cause why the case should not be dismissed without prejudice pursuant 22 to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in light of Plaintiff’s failure to 23 comply with the Court’s orders and prosecute the case. (Doc. 16). The order was 24 returned to the Court as undeliverable. (Doc. 17). Given Plaintiff’s failure to provide 25 notice of his current address and his failure to respond to the order to show cause, Judge 26 Bade considered whether dismissal is appropriate and analyzed the factors relevant to that 27 determination. 28 dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b). Based on that analysis, Judge Bade recommends that the case be 1 Judge Bade advised the parties that they had fourteen days to file objections and 2 that the failure to file timely objections "may result in the acceptance of the Report and 3 Recommendation by the District Court without further review.” (Doc. 18 at 3) (citing 4 United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc)). No 5 objections have been filed and the time to do so has expired. Absent any objections, the 6 Court is not required to review the findings and recommendations in the R&R. See 7 Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1989) (The relevant provision of the Federal 8 Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), “does not on its face require any review at all 9 . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”); Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121 10 (same); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge must determine de novo any part of 11 the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.”). 12 Nonetheless, the Court has reviewed the R&R and agrees with its findings and 13 recommendations. The Court will, therefore, accept the R&R and adopt Judge Bade’s 14 recommendations. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) (“A judge of the court may accept, 15 reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the 16 magistrate judge.”); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3) (same). 17 Accordingly, 18 IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Bade’s R&R (Doc. 18) is accepted and 19 20 21 22 adopted as the order of this Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and that the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly. Dated this 16th day of November, 2017. 23 24 25 26 Honorable Diane J. Humetewa United States District Judge 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?