Munoz 214046 v. Saad

Opinion

WO

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

Plaintiff, ORDER

v.

Ryan Thornell,

Defendant. Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) from the Magistrate Judge recommending that this case be dismissed without prejudice due to Plaintiff’s failure to comply with court orders (specifically, failing to keep his address current). (Doc. 46). On January 30, 2025, Plaintiff was ordered to, within 14 days, either file a notice of change of address or show cause why this case should not be dismissed. (Doc. 45). No response to this Order was received. Thus, on February 19, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued the pending R&R. (Doc. 46). The R&R was returned as undeliverable on February 28, 2025. (Doc. 47). No objections to the R&R have been filed and the deadline to object has expired. This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 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 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 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 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 [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 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.”’). No objections having been received, IT IS ORDERED that the R&R (Doc. 46) is accepted. This case is dismissed, without prejudice, and the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly. Dated this 14th day of March, 2025. ee 7 C James A. Teil Org Senior United States District Judge

-2-