Pologa-Seiuli v. Rice et al
Filing
27
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re: 22 Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff's Complaint as to Defendant Rice is dismissed without prejudice for failure to timely serve pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). This matter shall remain referred to Magistrate Judge Eileen S. Willett pursuant to Rules 72.1 and 72.2 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure for all pretrial proceedings. Signed by Judge Steven P Logan on 9/3/21. (DXD)
1
WO
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
Rimoni Pologa-Seiuli,
9
10
Plaintiff,
vs.
11
12
13
Robert Rice, et al.,
Defendants.
14
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. CV-20-02359-PHX-SPL (ESW)
ORDER
15
Plaintiff Rimoni Pologa-Seiuli has filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to
16
42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1). The Honorable Eileen S. Willett, United States Magistrate
17
Judge, issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 22), recommending the Court
18
dismiss without prejudice Defendant Robert Rice from Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to
19
serve pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). Plaintiff has filed an objection to
20
the R&R (Doc. 25).
21
A district judge “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
22
recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); see also Fed. R. Civ.
23
P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition;
24
receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.”).
25
When a party files a timely objection to an R&R, the district judge reviews de novo those
26
portions of the R&R that have been “properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). A
27
proper objection requires specific written objections to the findings and recommendations
28
in the R&R. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1118–19 (9th Cir. 2003);
1
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). It follows that the Court need not conduct any review of portions to
2
which no specific objection has been made. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121; see also
3
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (discussing the inherent purpose of limited review
4
is judicial economy). Further, a party is not entitled as of right to de novo review of
5
evidence or arguments which are raised for the first time in an objection to the R&R, and
6
the Court’s decision to consider them is discretionary. United States v. Howell, 231 F.3d
7
615, 621–622 (9th Cir. 2000).
8
In the R&R, the Magistrate Judge recommends that Defendant Rice be dismissed
9
pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, reasoning that Plaintiff has
10
not provided the U.S. Marshals Service (“USMS”) with sufficient information to effect
11
service on Defendant Rice or good cause as to why Defendant Rice should not be dismissed
12
for failure to timely serve. Although Plaintiff has objected to the R&R, his objection does
13
not point to any specific flaw in the Magistrate Judge’s analysis or findings. Instead, he
14
explains that he provided all of the information he has on Defendant Rice’s location, which
15
is where he was employed at the time of the alleged incident.1 He further states that if he
16
cannot proceed against Defendant Rice, he intends to move forward against Defendant
17
Perez. Ultimately, the circumstances identified by Plaintiff do not qualify as good cause to
18
excuse the delay. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Eileen S. Willett’s Report and
19
20
Recommendation (Doc. 22) is accepted and adopted by the Court.
21
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint as to Defendant Rice is
22
dismissed without prejudice for failure to timely serve pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
23
Procedure 4(m).
24
///
25
///
26
///
27
1
28
The process receipt notes that Defendant Rice no longer works at the Saguaro
Correctional Center (Doc. 10).
2
1
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter shall remain referred to Magistrate
2
Judge Eileen S. Willett pursuant to Rules 72.1 and 72.2 of the Local Rules of Civil
3
Procedure for all pretrial proceedings as authorized under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
4
Dated this 3rd day of September, 2021.
5
6
Honorable Steven P. Logan
United States District Judge
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?