Hamwright 116197 v. Camacho

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: January 27, 2025
• Docket: 2:23-cv-01265
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8

Kenyon O. Hamwright, ) No. CV-23-01265-PHX-SPL (DMF) ) 9 ) 10 Plaintiff, ) ORDER vs. ) ) 11 ) A. Camacho, et al., ) 12 ) 13 Defendants. ) ) 14 )

15 Plaintiff Kenyon O. Hamwright filed a First Amended Complaint pursuant to 42 16 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 9). The Honorable Deborah M. Fine, United States Magistrate Judge, 17 issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 42), recommending the Court 18 dismiss Defendant Riviera for failure to serve pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19 4(m). 20 A district judge “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 21 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); see also Fed. R. Civ. 22 P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; 23 receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.”). 24 When a party files a timely objection to an R&R, the district judge reviews de novo those 25 portions of the R&R that have been “properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). A 26 proper objection requires specific written objections to the findings and recommendations 27 in the R&R. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1118–19 (9th Cir. 2003); 28 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). It follows that the Court need not conduct any review of portions to 1 which no specific objection has been made. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121; see also 2 Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (discussing the inherent purpose of limited review 3 is judicial economy). Further, a party is not entitled as of right to de novo review of 4 evidence or arguments which are raised for the first time in an objection to the R&R, and 5 the Court’s decision to consider them is discretionary. United States v. Howell, 231 F.3d 6 615, 621–622 (9th Cir. 2000). 7 On November 15, 2024, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why Defendant 8 Riviera should not be dismissed for failure to complete service, failure to prosecute, and 9 failure to comply with Court orders (Doc. 39). Plaintiff has not responded or otherwise 10 taken any action. In the R&R, the Magistrate Judge recommends Defendant Riviera be 11 dismissed pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, reasoning that 12 Plaintiff has not shown excusable neglect, and there is not good cause for an extension of 13 time to effectuate service. (Doc. 42 at 8). 14 The parties did not file objections, which relieves the Court of its obligation to 15 review the R&R. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121; Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 16 (1985) (“[Section 636(b)(1)] does not… require any review at all… of any issue that is not 17 the subject of an objection.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge must determine 18 de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.”). 19 The Court has nonetheless reviewed the R&R and finds that it is well-taken. The Court will 20 thus adopt the R&R in full. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that the district court “may 21 accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the 22 magistrate”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the 23 recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate 24 judge with instructions.”). Accordingly, 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Deborah M. Fine’s Report and 2} Recommendation (Doc. 42) is accepted and adopted by the Court. 3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Riviera is dismissed without 4| prejudice. 5 Dated this 27th day of January, 2025. 6 7 8 LEGS 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28