Ramirez 69900 v. Corizon Health

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

9 Robert Angel Ramirez, No. CV-18-00004-PHX-DWL 10 Plaintiff, ORDER v. Corizon Health, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of the United States Magistrate Judge (Doc. 73). The R&R, which was issued on January 30, 2020, recommends “that the Court dismiss without prejudice Defendant Brisbois from Plaintiff’s 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 of a copy of this recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the Court.” (Id.) 22 Here, no such objections have been filed. Thus, the Court accepts the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. See, e.g., Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985) (“It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.”); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (“[N]o review is required of a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation unless objections are 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 || action, the dismissal being without prejudice.

7 Dated this 27th day of February, 2020.

9 Pe 11 United States District Judge _2-