Warren v. Payne

6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA John D . Warren, ) No. CV-21-01431-PHX-SPL (DMF) ) ) 10 Plaintiff, ) ORDER vs. ) ) ) Shanda Payne, et al., ) ) 13 Defendants. ) ) 14 ) 15 Plaintiff filed a pro se civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the Maricopa County Superior Court (Doc. 1). Defendants removed this matter to this Court on August 18, 2021 (Doc. 1). On December 16, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking dismissal of Defendant Scott Paige after being unable to obtain service information (Doc.

19 73). On December 22, 2022, the Honorable Deborah M. Fine, United States Magistrate Judge, issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 74), recommending that the Court grant the Motion. Judge Fine advised the parties that they had fourteen (14) days to file objections to the R&R and that failure to file timely objections could be considered a waiver of the right to obtain review of the R&R (Doc. 42 at 5). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, 72; United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003).

25 A district judge “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). When a party files a timely objection to an R&R, the district judge reviews de novo those portions of the R&R that have been “properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). A proper objection requires | specific written objections to the findings and recommendations in the R&R. See United 2| States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (th Cir. 2003); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (1). It | follows that the Court need not conduct any review of portions to which no specific objection has been made. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121; see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 5| U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (discussing the inherent purpose of limited review is judicial | economy).

7 The parties did not file objections, which relieves the Court of its obligation to | review the R&R. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121; Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. at 149 9| (“[Section 636(b)(1)] does not... require any review at all... of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge must determine de | novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected □□□□□□ | The Court has nonetheless reviewed the R&R and finds that it is well-taken. The Court | will adopt the R&R, grant the motion, and dismiss unserved Defendant Scott Paige. See 28 14| U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that the district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate’); Fed. R. Civ. P. 16| 72(b)(3) (“The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; | receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.”).

18 | Accordingly, 19 IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc.

20 | 74) is accepted and adopted by the Court.

21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 73) is granted, and Defendant Scott Paige is dismissed from this action without prejudice.

23 Dated this 23rd day of January, 2023.

6 United States District didge