Scroggins v. Fuller-Espinoza

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

9 Anthony Lamar Scroggins, No. CV-20-01742-PHX-DWL 10 Plaintiff, ORDER v. Unknown Fuller-Espinoza, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 This is a pro se prisoner civil rights action that has been referred to Magistrate Judge Boyle for all pretrial proceedings. (Doc. 5.)

17 On April 21, 2022, Judge Boyle issued a report and recommendation (“R&R”) concluding that this action should be dismissed without prejudice due to Plaintiff’s failure to file a change of address in compliance with LRCiv 83.3(d) and the October 19, 2020 screening order. (Doc. 28.) The R&R further concluded that, in light of this recommended outcome, Defendants’ motion to dismiss should be denied as moot. (Id.) Finally, the R&R stated that “[t]he parties shall have 14 days from the date of service of a copy of this Report and Recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the Court” and that “[f]ailure to timely file objections . . . may result in the acceptance of the Report and Recommendation by the district court without further review.” (Id. at 4-5.)

26 Here, the time to file objections has expired and neither side has filed any objections.

27 Additionally, the docket reflects that the R&R was returned as undeliverable when sent to Plaintiff due to his failure to update his address. (Doc. 29.) This underscores why the || recommended disposition in the R&R is correct. At any rate, district courts are not required || to review any portion of an R&R to which no specific objection has been made. See, e.g., 3|| Thomas vy. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985) (“It does not appear that Congress intended 4|| 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.”); United States 6|| v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[T]he district judge must review 7\| the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not || otherwise.’’).

9 Accordingly, 10 IT IS ORDERED that: 11 1. The R&R (Doc. 28) is accepted.

12 2. Plaintiff's complaint (Doc. 1) and this action are dismissed without 13 prejudice.

14 3. Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 22) is denied as moot.

15 4. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and terminate this action.

16 Dated this 16th day of May, 2022.

18 Lom ee” 19 f □□ □□ Dominic W. Lanza 20 United States District Judge -2-