Hill v. Sheridan

Opinion

1 KAB 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Jerry Hill, No. CV-24-01256-PHX-SMB 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Potres, et al., 13 Defendants.

14 15 Plaintiff Jerry Hill, who was formerly in the custody of the Maricopa County 16 Sheriff’s Office, brought this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 17 Pending before the Court are: Defendants’ Motion for Summary Adjudication (Doc. 32)1 18 and the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 41). 19 On screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), the Court determined that Plaintiff 20 stated a Fourteenth Amendment failure to protect claim against Defendants based on 21 Plaintiff’s allegations that the individual Defendant Officers (Potres and Pena) failed to 22 protect him from an attack by another detainee and Defendant Sheridan had a custom of 23 understaffing that led to the Fourteenth Amendment violation. (Docs. 7, 20.) 24 Defendant Sheridan moved for summary adjudication based on Plaintiff’s failure to 25 serve Defendants Potres and Pena (Doc. 32) and the Magistrate Judge subsequently issued 26 27 28 1 The Court attempted to inform Plaintiff of his rights and obligations to respond (Doc. 37), but the mail was returned as undeliverable. (Doc. 39.) 1 | aReport and Recommendation based on Plaintiffs failure to prosecute this action and keep the Court apprised of his current address (Doc. 41). 3 This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 4| recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 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 7| 1114, 1121 (th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 8) F.Supp.2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (“Following Reyna-Tapia, this Court concludes that 9| 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 11 | 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 13 | not required to conduct “any review at all. . . of any issue that is not the subject of an 14 objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (emphasis added); see also 28 U.S.C. 15 | § 636(b)(1) (“the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report 16 | and recommendation] to which objection is made.”). 17 Here, the Magistrate Judge recommends dismissal of this action without prejudice 18 | because Plaintiff has ostensibly lost interest in its prosecution and has not kept the Court 19 | or Defendants apprised of his address. There being no objection, 20 IT IS ORDERED: 21 (1) The Magistrate Judge’s April 21, 2025 Report and Recommendation (Doc. 41) 22 is ACCEPTED AND ADOPTED. This action is dismissed without prejudice 23 for failure to prosecute. The Clerk of the Court must enter judgment 24 accordingly. 25 (2) Defendant’s Motion for Summary Adjudication (Doc. 32) is denied as moot. 26 Dated this 6th day of May, 2025. 27 Se . 28 SO te Aionorable Susan M. Brnovich =~ United States District Judge