Cagle v. Shinn

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: May 6, 2025
• Docket: 2:22-cv-01902
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Shaine Carl Cagle, No. CV-22-01902-PHX-JAT

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Gary Gawelko, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (R&R) of the 16 Magistrate Judge to whom this case was referred recommending that this case be dismissed 17 for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). (Doc. 86). Plaintiff’s 18 mail is being returned as undeliverable because he is no longer in custody and has not 19 updated his address. (See e.g. Doc. 85). Plaintiff was directed to update his address (Doc. 20 82), and Plaintiff’s former lawyer attempted to deliver a copy of Doc. 82 to him (Doc. 83). 21 At this point, Plaintiff is pro se and the Court has no ability to contact him. Unsurprisingly, 22 Plaintiff has not objected to the R&R. 23 This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 24 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). It is “clear that 25 the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de 26 novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 27 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F.Supp.2d 28 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (“Following Reyna-Tapia, this Court concludes that de novo 1 || 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 3 || 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 “any review at all ... of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 6|| 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 8 || objection is made.”). 9 There being no objections, 10 IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 86) is accepted. The 11 || reference to the Magistrate Judge is withdrawn. This case is dismissed in its entirety, 12 || without prejudice, and the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly. 13 Dated this 5th day of May, 2025. 14 15 a 3 16 17 _ James A. Teil Org Senior United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_2-