Hunter v. U S Corrections Transport et al

Filing 41

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re: 37 Report and Recommendation. Defendant Simmons is dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to timely serve. Because another Defendant remains in this case, the Clerk shall not enter judgment at this time. Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 2/14/19. (DXD)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Cornelius Isaac Hunter,
Plaintiff,

10
11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-18-00899-PHX-JAT (JFM)

US Corrections Transport, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15

Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (R&R) from the

16

Magistrate Judge recommending the Defendant Simmons be dismissed for failure to timely

17

serve. (Doc. 37). Neither party has file objections to the R&R.

18

This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

19

recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). It is “clear that

20

the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de

21

novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d

22

1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263

23

F.Supp.2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (“Following Reyna-Tapia, this Court concludes that

24

de novo review of factual and legal issues is required if objections are made, ‘but not

25

otherwise.’”); Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Ctr. v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 589 F.3d

26

1027, 1032 (9th Cir. 2009) (the district court “must review de novo the portions of the

27

[Magistrate Judge=s] recommendations to which the parties object.”). District courts are

28

not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an

1

objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (emphasis added); see also 28 U.S.C.

2

' 636(b)(1) (“the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report

3

and recommendation] to which objection is made.”).

4

Because neither party objected,

5

IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 37) is accepted;

6

Defendant Simmons is dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to timely serve. Because

7

another Defendant remains in this case, the Clerk of the Court shall not enter judgment at

8

this time.

9

Dated this 14th day of February, 2019.

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-2-