Tate 258794 v. Hernandez

D. Arizona

Tate 258794 v. Hernandez

DecidedMay 21, 2021

Docket2:19-cv-05089

StatusUnknown

This text of Tate 258794 v. Hernandez (Tate 258794 v. Hernandez) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Tate 258794 v. Hernandez, (D. Ariz. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

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

Jonatha n Tate, ) No. CV-19-05089-SPL (JFM) ) 9 ) 10 Plaintiff, ) ORDER vs. ) ) 11 ) Unknown Hernandez, et al., ) 12 ) 13 Defendants. ) ) 14 )

15 On September 4, 2019, Plaintiff filed a pro se complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 16 1983 (Doc. 1). On Aril 21, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Extension of Time for Service 17 (Doc. 61). On April 29, 2021, the Honorable James F. Metcalf, United States Magistrate 18 Judge, issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 62), recommending that the 19 Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion and dismiss Defendant Hernandez and this case without 20 prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). Judge Metcalf advised Plaintiff 21 that he had fourteen (14) days to file objections to the R&R and that failure to file timely 22 objections could be considered a waiver of the right to obtain review of the R&R. See also 23 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, 72; United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 24 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). 25 No timely objection has been filed, which relieves the Court of its obligation to 26 review the R&R. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121; Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 27 (1985) (“[Section 636(b)(1)] does not . . . require any review at all . . . of any issue that is 28 not the subject of an objection.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge must 1 | determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly 2| objected to.”). The Court has nonetheless reviewed the R&R and finds that it is well-taken. The Court will thus adopt the R&R in full. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that the 4| district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 5 | recommendations made by the magistrate”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge 6 | may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or 7 | return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.”). Accordingly, 8 IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 9 | 62) is accepted and adopted by the Court. 10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time for 11 | Service (Doc. 61) is denied. 12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Hernandez and this case are 13 | dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). 14 Dated this 21st day of May, 2021. 15

7 United States District kadge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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

Jonatha n Tate, ) No. CV-19-05089-SPL (JFM) ) 9 ) 10 Plaintiff, ) ORDER vs. ) ) 11 ) Unknown Hernandez, et al., ) 12 ) 13 Defendants. ) ) 14 )

15 On September 4, 2019, Plaintiff filed a pro se complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 16 1983 (Doc. 1). On Aril 21, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Extension of Time for Service 17 (Doc. 61). On April 29, 2021, the Honorable James F. Metcalf, United States Magistrate 18 Judge, issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 62), recommending that the 19 Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion and dismiss Defendant Hernandez and this case without 20 prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). Judge Metcalf advised Plaintiff 21 that he had fourteen (14) days to file objections to the R&R and that failure to file timely 22 objections could be considered a waiver of the right to obtain review of the R&R. See also 23 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, 72; United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 24 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). 25 No timely objection has been filed, which relieves the Court of its obligation to 26 review the R&R. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121; Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 27 (1985) (“[Section 636(b)(1)] does not . . . require any review at all . . . of any issue that is 28 not the subject of an objection.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge must 1 | determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly 2| objected to.”). The Court has nonetheless reviewed the R&R and finds that it is well-taken. The Court will thus adopt the R&R in full. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that the 4| district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 5 | recommendations made by the magistrate”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge 6 | may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or 7 | return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.”). Accordingly, 8 IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 9 | 62) is accepted and adopted by the Court. 10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time for 11 | Service (Doc. 61) is denied. 12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Hernandez and this case are 13 | dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). 14 Dated this 21st day of May, 2021. 15

7 United States District kadge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Tate 258794 v. Hernandez, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tate-258794-v-hernandez-azd-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack