Grant v. Phoenix, City of

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

9 Chandler Grant, No. CV-21-00950-PHX-DWL 10 Plaintiff, ORDER v. City of Phoenix, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 On June 1, 2021, Plaintiff—who was, at the time, represented by counsel—initiated this action by filing a complaint. (Doc. 1.) Afterward, Plaintiff’s counsel moved to withdraw (Doc. 4) and sought an extension of time to complete service (Doc. 5). Both motions were granted and Plaintiff was given until October 29, 2021 to complete service.

19 (Doc. 6.) After that deadline expired without proof of service, the Court issued an order to show cause (“OSC”) why this action should not be dismissed for failure to timely serve.

21 (Doc. 7.) Finally, when Plaintiff failed to respond to the OSC, Magistrate Judge Willett issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) concluding that this action should be dismissed for failure to serve. (Doc. 8.) The R&R, which was issued on December 2, 2021, further specified 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. . . . Failure to file timely objections . . . may result in the acceptance of the [R&R] by the District Court without further review.” (Id. at 3.)

28 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 2|| 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) 7\| ([T]he district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations || de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.’’).

9 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 10 1. The R&R (Doc. 8) is accepted.

11 2. The complaint (Doc. 1) is dismissed for failure to serve.

12 3. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and terminate this action.

13 Dated this 22nd day of December, 2021.

15 fm ee” 16 f □ _o—— Dominic W. Lanza 17 United States District Judge _2-