Nealy, Jr. 209732 v. Shinn

Opinion

Charles E Nealy, No. CV-20-01123-PHX-DLR (JFM)

Plaintiff, ORDER

v.

David Shinn, et al.,

Defendants. Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend (Doc. 90), seeking a 90-day extension of time to file a notice of substitution naming the fictitiously named Defendant John Doe, and United States Magistrate Judge James F. Metcalf’s Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 95). The R&R recommends that the Court deny the motion and dismiss the John Doe defendant. 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). Neither party filed objections, which relieves the Court of its obligation to review the R&R. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121; Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (“[Section 636(b)(1)] does not . . . require any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.”). The Court has nonetheless reviewed the R&R and finds that it is well-taken. The Court will accept 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 whole or in part, □□ the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate’); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.”’). IT IS ORDERED that the R&R (Doc. 95) is ACCEPTED. Plaintiff’s motion to extend (Doc. 90) is DENIED and the fictitious defendant John Doe is dismissed without prejudice. Dated this 18th day of August, 2021. , {Z, _- Ae Used States Dictrid Judge

_2-