Herrera 152559 v. Unknown Party

Opinion

Jesse Herrera, No. CV-24-00413-PHX-DLR

Plaintiff, ORDER

v.

Unknown Party, et al.,

Defendants. Before the Court is United States Magistrate Judge Bachus’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the Court dismiss this action without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to serve any named defendant pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. 21.) The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had fourteen days to file objections to the R&R and that failure to file timely objections could be considered a waiver of the right to obtain review of the R&R. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (failing to timely object to an R&R waives review of that R&R). Neither party filed objections, but the Court did receive a writing from the Plaintiff in which he expresses his dissatisfaction with the process. (Doc. 22.) Because neither party filed an objection, the Court is relived of its obligation to review the R&R. Still, the Court reviewed the R&R and finds it well-taken. The Court accepts the R&R in its entirety. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that the district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in 1 whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). IT IS ORDERED that the R&R (Doc. 21) is ACCEPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the reference of this case to the Magistrate Judge is WITHDRAWN, and this action shall be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court enter judgment □□ accordingly and terminate this case. Dated this 21st day of October, 2024. ll {Z, _- Ae Sout United Sites District Judge

_2-