Ramirez 69900 v. Corizon Health

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5

9 Robert Angel Ramirez, No. CV-18-00004-PHX-DWL

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Corizon Health, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of the United 16 States Magistrate Judge (Doc. 73). The R&R, which was issued on January 30, 2020, 17 recommends “that the Court dismiss without prejudice Defendant Brisbois from Plaintiff’s 18 Complaint (Doc. 1) for failure to serve pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).” (Doc. 73 at 3.) 19 The R&R further states that “[t]he parties shall have fourteen days from the date of service 20 of a copy of this recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the 21 Court.” (Id.) 22 Here, no such objections have been filed. Thus, the Court accepts the Magistrate 23 Judge’s recommendation. See, e.g., Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985) (“It does 24 not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate’s factual 25 or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to 26 those findings.”); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (“[N]o 27 review is required of a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation unless objections are 28 filed.”). See also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) 1|| (“[T]he district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations 2|| de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.”’). 3 Accordingly, 4 IT IS ORDERED that the R&R’s recommended disposition (Doc. 73) is accepted. 5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Brisbois is dismissed from this 6 || action, the dismissal being without prejudice. 7 Dated this 27th day of February, 2020. 8 9 Pe

11 United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_2-