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)

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-