Terry Lee Garrison v. NaphCare Incorporated, et al.

Opinion

1 WO

6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8

9 Terry Lee Garrison, NO. CV-24-01407-PHX-SMM (MTM) 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 NaphCare Incorporated, et al., 13 Defendants. 14

15 16 Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Michael T. Morrissey’s Report and 17 Recommendation. (Doc. 70). The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court dismiss 18 Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint without prejudice as to Defendants Grace Adams, Siji 19 Thomas, and Rodney Stewart pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil 20 Procedure for failure to prosecute. (Id.) For the following reasons, the Court adopts the 21 Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. 23 On August 21, 2024, Plaintiff Terry Lee Garrison filed a pro se civil rights 24 Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 9). Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint 25 against Defendants NaphCare Incorporated, Grace Adams, Siji Thomas, Michael 26 Braithwaite, Unknown Humphries, Bellene Racowsky, Unknown Forehand, Rodney 27 Stewart filed by Terry Lee Garrison on July 22, 2025. (Doc. 63). On July 23, 2025, the 28 Court issued an Order dismissing Count IV of the Amended Complaint as well as 1 Defendants Braithwaite, Racowsky, Humphries, and Forehand from the entirety of this 2 action. (Doc. 64). The Court then directed the Clerk of Court to send service packets to 3 Plaintiff to send to Defendants Adama, Thomas, and Stewart. (Id.). After Plaintiff did not 4 return the service packets, on September 23, 2025, the Court ordered that Plaintiff must 5 either return to the Clerk completed service packets for Defendants or show cause why 6 this matter should not be dismissed for failure to comply with the Court’s Order. (Doc. 7 69). 9 On October 20, 2024, Magistrate Judge Michael T. Morrissey issued a Report and 10 Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 70), recommending that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s 11 Amended Complaint without prejudice as to Defendants Adams, Thomas, and Stewart 12 pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to prosecute. 13 The Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff that he had fourteen (14) days to file objections to 14 the R&R and that failure to file timely objections could be considered a waiver of the 15 right to obtain review of the R&R. (Id.); see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, 72; 16 United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). 17 No timely objection has been filed, which relieves the Court of its obligation to 18 review the R&R. See id.; Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (“[Section 636(b)(1)] 19 does not. . . require any review at all. . .of any issue that is not the subject of an 20 objection.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge must determine de novo any 21 part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.”). 22 The Court has nonetheless reviewed the R&R and agrees that Plaintiff’s failure 23 return the service packets or otherwise respond to the Court’s Order warrants dismissal of 24 this action as to Defendants Adams, Thomas, and Stewart without prejudice. See 28 25 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that the district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole 26 or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 27 72(b)(3) (“The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; 28 receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.”). 1 Accordingly, 2 IT IS ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate || Judge. (Doc. 70.) 4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing without prejudice Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Doc. 63) and this action as to Defendants Grace Adama, □□□□ 6|| Thomas, and Rodney Stewart pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 8 Dated this 5th day of November, 2025. 9

11 Stephen M. McNamee Senior United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-3-