Greer v. Federal Bureau of Prisons et al

Filing 8

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 6 - Plaintiff's complaint (Doc. 1 ) is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk of the Court shall terminate this case. (See document for further details). Signed by Judge Douglas L Rayes on 2/14/18. (LAD)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Elsia Michelle Greer, Plaintiff, 10 11 ORDER v. 12 No. CV-17-02034-PHX-DLR Federal Bureau of Prisons, Behavioral Systems Southwest Incorporated, Steven Doran, and David Brue, 13 14 Defendants. 15 16 17 Before the Court is Plaintiff Elsia Michelle Greer’s complaint and United States 18 Magistrate Judge Eileen S. Willet’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”). (Docs. 1, 6.) 19 The R&R recommends that the Court dismiss the action without prejudice for failure to 20 timely serve Defendant Brue in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). 21 The R&R states that the Court directed service of Defendant and ordered Plaintiff 22 complete and return a service packet to the Clerk of Court within twenty-one days of its 23 order. Plaintiff failed to do so. As part of this order, the Court warned Plaintiff that 24 failure to timely serve Defendant may result in dismissal of the action. Subsequently, the 25 Court issued an order directing Plaintiff to show cause why this action should not be 26 dismissed without prejudice for failure to timely serve. Plaintiff failed to respond. 27 Thereafter, the Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had fourteen days to 28 file objections to the R&R and that failure to file timely objections could be considered a 1 waiver of the right to obtain review of the R&R. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 2 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Plaintiff did not file objections, which relieves the 3 Court of its obligation to review the R&R. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121; Thomas 4 v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (“[Section 636(b)(1)] does not . . . require any review at 5 all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) 6 (“The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s 7 disposition that has been properly objected to.”). The Court has nonetheless reviewed the 8 R&R and finds that it is well-taken. The Court will accept the R&R and dismiss the 9 complaint without prejudice for failure to timely effect service. See 28 U.S.C. § 10 636(b)(1) (stating that the district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in 11 part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) 12 (“The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive 13 further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.”). 14 IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Willett’s R&R (Doc. 6) is ACCEPTED. 15 Plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk of the Court 16 shall terminate this case. 17 Dated this 14th day of February, 2018. 18 19 20 21 22 Douglas L. Rayes United States District Judge 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?