Jones v. Red Rock Correctional Center

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

9 Joshua Jermaine Jones, No. CV-20-00927-PHX-DWL (ESW) 10 Plaintiff, ORDER v. Red Rock Correctional Center, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 Petitioner, who is proceeding pro se, initiated this civil rights action in May 2020 by filing a complaint. (Doc. 1.) The complaint names four defendants: (1) “Red Rock CCA”; (2) “Unknown Insurer of Red Rock CCA”; (3) “Unknown Medical Provider”; and (4) “Unknown Insurer of Unknown Medical Provider.” (Id. at 5.)

19 On November 3, 2020, Magistrate Judge Willett issued an order requiring Plaintiff to show cause why the first defendant, “Red Rock CCA,” shouldn’t be dismissed as an improperly named defendant (because prison facilities aren’t “persons” for purposes of 42 22 U.S.C. § 1983) and why the remaining three defendants shouldn’t be dismissed for failure to timely serve. (Doc. 13.)

24 On November 16, 2020, Plaintiff filed a document suggesting that the third defendant, “Unknown Medical Provider,” was actually Dr. Derek Burnett. (Doc. 14.) This document did not address the other three defendants. Magistrate Judge Willett later construed this document as a motion to substitute Dr. Derek Burnett as a party, which request was granted, and a request for an extension of time to serve Dr. Derek Burnett, || which request was also granted. (Doc. 15,) 2 On January 20, 2021, Magistrate Judge Willett issued a report and recommendation 3|| (“R&R”) concluding that the remaining three defendants should be dismissed from this action. (Doc. 16.) The R&R further stated 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.” (Jd. at 4.)

7 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 9|| 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 (th Cir. 2003) (“[T]he district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations || de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.”).

16 Accordingly, 17 IT IS ORDERED that: 18 1. The R&R (Doc. 16) is accepted.

19 2. Defendant “Red Rock CCA” is dismissed from this action as an improper || defendant.

21 3. Defendants “Unknown Insurer of Red Rock CCA” and “Unknown Insurer of || Unknown Medical Provider” are dismissed from this action for failure to substitute and || timely serve.

24 Dated this 12th day of February, 2021.

26 fm ee” 27 f : _o——— Dominic W. Lanza 28 United States District Judge _2-