Munoz 214046 v. Saad

Opinion

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

9 Albert Munoz, No. CV-23-01428-PHX-JAT

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Ryan Thornell,

13 Defendant. 14 15 Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) from the 16 Magistrate Judge recommending that this case be dismissed without prejudice due to 17 Plaintiff’s failure to comply with court orders (specifically, failing to keep his address 18 current). (Doc. 46). 19 On January 30, 2025, Plaintiff was ordered to, within 14 days, either file a notice of 20 change of address or show cause why this case should not be dismissed. (Doc. 45). No 21 response to this Order was received. Thus, on February 19, 2025, the Magistrate Judge 22 issued the pending R&R. (Doc. 46). The R&R was returned as undeliverable on February 23 28, 2025. (Doc. 47). No objections to the R&R have been filed and the deadline to object 24 has expired. 25 This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 26 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). It is “clear that 27 the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de 28 novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 2|| F.Supp.2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (“Following Reyna-Tapia, this Court concludes that || de novo review of factual and legal issues is required if objections are made, “but not 4|| otherwise.’”); Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Ctr. v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 589 F.3d || 1027, 1032 (9th Cir. 2009) (the district court “must review de novo the portions of the 6|| [Magistrate Judge’s] recommendations to which the parties object.”). District courts are 7\|| not required to conduct “any review at all... of any issue that is not the subject of an 8 || objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (emphasis added); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (“the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report |) and recommendation] to which objection is made.”’). 11 No objections having been received, 12 IT IS ORDERED that the R&R (Doc. 46) is accepted. This case is dismissed, 13 || without prejudice, and the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly. 14 Dated this 14th day of March, 2025. 15 16 ee 7 C 17 18 James A. Teil Org Senior United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-2-