Schuster v. Pima, County of

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

9 Deborah Schuster, No. CV-24-00054-TUC-RCC 10 Plaintiff, ORDER v. County of Pima, et al., 13 Defendant.

15 On June 6, 2024, Magistrate Judge Bruce G. Macdonald issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") in which he recommended the District Court dismiss this case without prejudice. (Doc. 9 at 2.) Judge Macdonald notified Plaintiff1 that she had fourteen (14) days from the date of the R&R to file any objections. (Id.) She did not file any objection, and the time to do so has now passed.

20 If neither party objects to a Magistrate Judge's R&R, the District Court is not required to review the recommendation under any specified standard of review. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). However, the statute for review of a Magistrate Judge's recommendation "does not preclude further review by the district judge, sua sponte or at the request of a party, under a de novo or any other standard." Id. at 154.

25 The Court has reviewed the Complaint (Doc. 1), Order to Show Cause (Doc. 8), and Judge Macdonald's R&R (Doc. 9). Judge Macdonald's conclusions are thorough and well-reasoned. Plaintiff did not serve Defendant Pima County, did not file a response to 1 Defendant Pima County has not been served and, accordingly, never made an appearance in this matter. || the Magistrate Judge's Order to Show Cause, and did not file an objection to the R&R || recommending dismissing her case. The Court agrees with Judge Macdonald's conclusion || that Plaintiff has failed to prosecute her case and dismissal is, therefore, warranted.

4 Accordingly, 5 IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Macdonald's Report and 6|| Recommendation is ADOPTED. (Doc. 9.) This matter is DISMISSED WITHOUT 7\| PREJUDICE. The Clerk of Court shall docket accordingly.

8 Dated this 24th day of June, 2024.

10 4] 11 Lb pL tK~ Cub V2 Honorable Raner ©. Collins 13 senior United States District Judge _2-