Granados 280949 v. Arizona, State of

6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Crispin Granados, ) No. CV-22-00964-PHX-SPL ) ) 10 Plaintiff, ) ORDER vs. ) ) ) State of Arizona, et al., ) ) 13 Defendants. ) ) 14 ) 15 Plaintiff Crispin Granados has filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 16 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1). The Honorable Alison S. Bachus, United States Magistrate Judge, issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 20), recommending the Court dismiss this action for failure to serve pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).

19 Plaintiff has filed an objection to the R&R (Doc. 21).

20 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); see also Fed. R. Civ. 22 P. 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.”).

24 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)(3). A proper objection requires specific written objections to the findings and recommendations in the R&R. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1118–19 (9th 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 2| Thomas vy. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (discussing the inherent purpose of limited review 3| is judicial economy). Further, a party is not entitled as of right to de novo review of evidence or arguments which are raised for the first time in an objection to the R&R, and 5| the Court’s decision to consider them is discretionary. United States v. Howell, 231 F.3d 6| 615, 621-622 (9th Cir. 2000).

7 In the R&R, the Magistrate Judge recommends this action be dismissed pursuant to | Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, reasoning that Plaintiff provided no | discernable good cause for failure to serve the remaining defendant in this case (Doc. 20 at 10| 3). Plaintiff's objection argues he has not received a Spanish translation of the Federal | Rules of Procedure, he is innocent, and the undersigned is not acting impartially (Doc. 21).

The Court finds the circumstances identified by Plaintiff do not qualify as good cause to | excuse the delay. To the extent Plaintiff argues he never received the second service packet 14| (Doc. 21; see Doc. 14), this argument was not addressed in the Response to the Order to | Show Cause (Doc. 19) and is raised for the first time in his objection to the R&R. As a | result, the Court will not consider it. See Howell, 231 F.3d at 621-622. Accordingly, 17 IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Alison S. Bachus’s Report and | Recommendation (Doc. 20) is accepted and adopted by the Court.

19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Objections (Doc. 21) are overruled.

20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed without prejudice and the Clerk of Court shall terminate this action.

22 Dated this 24th day of August, 2023.

United States District didge