Ridgeley v. Cole

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8

Debora h L. Ridgeley, ) No. CV-20-01379-PHX-SPL (ESW) ) 9 ) 10 Plaintiff, ) ORDER vs. ) ) 11 ) Unknown Cole, et al., ) 12 ) 13 Defendants. ) ) 14 )

15 On July 13, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1). 16 One of the Defendants named therein was a John Doe. On November 5, 2020, this Court 17 screened Plaintiff’s Complaint and ordered Plaintiff to file a Notice of Substitution 18 substituting Defendant Doe’s actual name within 120 days. (Doc. 6 at 12). The Court 19 warned that Defendant Doe may be dismissed if Plaintiff did not do so, unless Plaintiff 20 received an extension of time. (Doc. 6 at 12). The case was referred to the Honorable Eileen 21 S. Willett, United States Magistrate Judge, who granted an extension of the service 22 deadline to April 5, 2021. (Doc. 14). No Notice of Substitution naming Defendant Doe was 23 ever filed. 24 On November 19, 2021, Judge Willett ordered Plaintiff to show cause why 25 Defendant Doe should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. (Doc. 33). Plaintiff did not 26 respond to the Order. On January 12, 2022, Judge Willett issued a Report & 27 Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that Defendant Doe be dismissed without 28 prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute and comply with the Court’s Orders. (Doc. 36). 1 Judge Willett advised the parties that they had fourteen (14) days to file objections to the 2 R&R and that failure to file timely objections could be considered a waiver of the right to 3 obtain review of the R&R (Doc. 36 at 3). See also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 6, 72; United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). 5 A district judge “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 6 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). When a party files a 7 timely objection to an R&R, the district judge reviews de novo those portions of the R&R 8 that have been “properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). A proper objection requires 9 specific written objections to the findings and recommendations in the R&R. See United 10 States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (1). It 11 follows that the Court need not conduct any review of portions to which no specific 12 objection has been made. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121; see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 13 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (discussing the inherent purpose of limited review is judicial 14 economy). 15 The parties did not file objections, which relieves the Court of its obligation to 16 review the R&R. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121; Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 17 (1985) (“[Section 636(b)(1)] does not… require any review at all… of any issue that is not 18 the subject of an objection.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge must determine 19 de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.”). 20 The Court has nonetheless reviewed the R&R and finds that it is well-taken. The Court 21 will adopt the R&R and dismiss Defendant Doe. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that 22 the district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 23 recommendations made by the magistrate”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge 24 may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or 25 return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.”). Accordingly, 26 IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 27 36) is accepted and adopted by the Court. 28 /// 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant John Doe is dismissed without 2| prejudice from Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 1) for Plaintiffs failure to comply with the 3 | Court’s Orders and to prosecute pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 4 Dated this 27th day of January, 2022. 5

7 United States District kadge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28