Andrew Marquez Suarez v. Unknown Correa

D. Arizona

Andrew Marquez Suarez v. Unknown Correa

District Court, D. Arizona·Decided January 26, 2026·No. 2:25-cv-02799·Unknown

Opinion

WO

Andrew Marquez Suarez, No. CV-25-02799-PHX-JAT

Plaintiff, ORDER

v.

Unknown Correa,

Defendant. Pending before the Court is the report and recommendation from Magistrate Judge Metcalf recommending that this case be dismissed for failure to timely serve. (Doc. 11). The time to file objections to the report and recommendation has expired and no party filed objections. A district court’s review of a Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation is impacted by whether either party has timely objected. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). It is “clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F.Supp.2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (“Following Reyna-Tapia, this Court concludes that de novo review of factual and legal issues is required if objections are made, ‘but not otherwise.’”); Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Ctr. v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 589 F.3d 1027, 1032 (9th Cir. 2009) (The district court “must review de novo the portions of the [Magistrate Judge’s] recommendations to which the parties object.”). District courts are not required to conduct 1 “any review at all ... of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (“[T]he court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which objection is made.”’). There being no objections, the Court accepts the report and recommendation. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (“A [district court judge] may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or 7\| in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 11) is accepted. This case is dismissed, without prejudice, and the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly. Dated this 26th day of January, 2026.

James A. Teilborg Senior United States District Judge

-2-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

WO

Andrew Marquez Suarez, No. CV-25-02799-PHX-JAT

Plaintiff, ORDER

v.

Unknown Correa,

Defendant. Pending before the Court is the report and recommendation from Magistrate Judge Metcalf recommending that this case be dismissed for failure to timely serve. (Doc. 11). The time to file objections to the report and recommendation has expired and no party filed objections. A district court’s review of a Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation is impacted by whether either party has timely objected. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). It is “clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F.Supp.2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (“Following Reyna-Tapia, this Court concludes that de novo review of factual and legal issues is required if objections are made, ‘but not otherwise.’”); Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Ctr. v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 589 F.3d 1027, 1032 (9th Cir. 2009) (The district court “must review de novo the portions of the [Magistrate Judge’s] recommendations to which the parties object.”). District courts are not required to conduct 1 “any review at all ... of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (“[T]he court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which objection is made.”’). There being no objections, the Court accepts the report and recommendation. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (“A [district court judge] may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or 7\| in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 11) is accepted. This case is dismissed, without prejudice, and the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly. Dated this 26th day of January, 2026.

James A. Teilborg Senior United States District Judge

-2-

Andrew Marquez Suarez v. Unknown Correa, (D. Ariz. 2026).

Pincite

Andrew Marquez Suarez v. Unknown Correa (Andrew Marquez Suarez v. Unknown Correa) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related