Garcia v. Shepherd

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

9 Zaiqeri Garcia, No. CV-21-00236-PHX-DWL 10 Plaintiff, ORDER v. J Adam Shepherd, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 On January 4, 2022, Magistrate Judge Boyle issued a report and recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that (1) “Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint (doc. 14) and this action [be] dismissed without prejudice” and (2) “Defendants’ Motion for Extension of Time for Scheduling Order Deadlines (doc. 27) [be] denied as moot.” (Doc. 28 at 5.) The R&R further provided 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 and the time to object has expired. Thus, the Court accepts Judge Boyle’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 (th Cir. 2003) (“[T]he district judge must review the magistrate judge’s 2|| findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.”).

3 Accordingly, 4 IT IS ORDERED that: 5 1. The R&R (Doc. 28) is accepted.

6 2. Plaintiffs Third Amended Complaint (Doc. 14) and this action are dismissed 7\| without prejudice.

8 3. Defendants’ Motion for Extension of Time for Scheduling Order Deadlines (Doc. 27) is denied as moot.

10 Dated this 27th day of January, 2022.

12 Am ee 13 f CC —— Dominic W. Lanza 14 United States District Judge _2-