Ricky Lee Campbell v. Unknown Vargas and Unknown Andersen

Opinion

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

9 Ricky Lee Campbell, No. CV-24-01797-PHX-JAT (JZB)

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Unknown Vargas and Unknown Andersen,

13 Defendants. 14 15 Pending before the Court is the report and recommendation from Magistrate Judge 16 Boyle recommending that Defendant Andersen be dismissed for failure to timely serve. 17 (Doc. 51). The time to file objections to the report and recommendation has expired and 18 no party filed objections. 19 A district court’s review of a Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation is 20 impacted by whether either party has timely objected. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). It is “clear that 21 the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de 22 novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 23 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F.Supp.2d 24 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (“Following Reyna-Tapia, this Court concludes that de novo 25 review of factual and legal issues is required if objections are made, ‘but not otherwise.’”); 26 Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Ctr. v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 589 F.3d 1027, 1032 (9th 27 Cir. 2009) (The district court “must review de novo the portions of the [Magistrate Judge’s] 28 recommendations to which the parties object.”). District courts are not required to conduct 1|| “any review at all ... of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 2|| 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (“[T]he court shall make a de 3|| novo determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which 4|| objection is made.”’). 5 There being no objections, the Court accepts the report and recommendation. See 6|| 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (“A [district court judge] may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or 7\| in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”). Accordingly, 8 IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 51) 1s accepted. 9|| Defendant Andersen is dismissed, without prejudice. 10 Dated this 18th day of May, 2026. 11

13 14 James A. Teil Org Senior United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-2-