Lindsey 367587 v. Lee

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: March 13, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-01511
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

9 Terrence Louis Lindsey, No. CV-24-01511-PHX-JAT

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Avery Lee,

13 Defendant. 14 15 Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) from the 16 Magistrate Judge recommending that the complaint in this case be dismissed without 17 prejudice for failure to prosecute. (Doc. 15). 18 On January 21, 2025, Plaintiff was ordered to file a notice of change of address or 19 show cause why this case should not be dismissed by February 4, 2025. (Doc. 14). This 20 Order was mailed to Plaintiff at his last known address that same day. It was returned to 21 the Court as undeliverable on February 13, 2025. On February 10, 2025, the Magistrate 22 Judge issued the pending R&R. (Doc. 15). It was mailed to Plaintiff at his last known 23 address that same day. The R&R was returned to the Court as undeliverable on March 11, 24 2025. 25 On February 10, 2025, Plaintiff filed a notice of change of address. (Doc. 16). As 26 a result, on February 11, 2025, the Clerk’s office re-sent Plaintiff the R&R. On February 27 14, 2025, Plaintiff filed another notice of change of address, but listed the same address as 28 his February 10, 2025, change of address. 1 Thus, Plaintiff received the R&R at his new address. No objections to the R&R 2 have been filed and the deadline to file has expired. The R&R advised Plaintiff: 3 …The parties shall have 14 days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the 4 Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), 6(b) and 72. Thereafter, the parties have 14 days within which to file a response to the 5 objections. Failure to timely file objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and 6 Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report and 7 Recommendation by the district court without further review. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)…. 8 (Doc. 15 at 3). 9 This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 10 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). As the R&R 11 indicated, it is “clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and 12 recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna- 13 Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original); Schmidt v. 14 Johnstone, 263 F.Supp.2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (“Following Reyna-Tapia, this Court 15 concludes that de novo review of factual and legal issues is required if objections are made, 16 ‘but not otherwise.’”); Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Ctr. v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 589 17 F.3d 1027, 1032 (9th Cir. 2009) (the district court “must review de novo the portions of 18 the [Magistrate Judge’s] recommendations to which the parties object.”). District courts 19 are not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an 20 objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (emphasis added); see also 28 U.S.C. 21 § 636(b)(1) (“the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report 22 and recommendation] to which objection is made.”) 23 No objections having been received, 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 IT IS ORDERED that the R&R (Doc. 15) is accepted. The complaint is dismissed, 2|| without prejudice, and the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly. 3 Dated this 13th day of March, 2025. 4 5 ' ° 7 James A. C rg Senior United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_3-