Peterson 298007 v. Thornell

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

9 Shaun Andrew Peterson, No. CV-22-00042-PHX-GMS (MTM) 10 Plaintiff, ORDER v. David Shinn, et al., 13 Defendants.

16 Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of Magistrate Judge Michael T. Morrissey (Doc. 169) regarding Plaintiff’s failure to timely effect service on Defendant J. Olguin.

19 The R&R recommends the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint (Doc. 18) without prejudice as to Defendant J. Olguin under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had fourteen days to file objections to the R&R. (R&R at 5 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a) and 72.). No objections were filed.

24 Because the parties did not file objections, the Court need not review any of the Magistrate Judge’s determinations on dispositive matters. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (“[Section 636(b)(1)] does not . . . require any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”). The absence of a || timely objection also means that error may not be assigned on appeal to any defect in the 2|| rulings of the Magistrate Judge on any non-dispositive matters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) (“A || party may serve and file objections to the order within 14 days after being served with a 4|| copy [of the magistrate’s order]. A party may not assign as error a defect in the order not || timely objected to.”); Simpson v. Lear Astronics Corp., 77 F.3d 1170, 1174 (9th Cir. 1996); 6|| Phillips v. GMC, 289 F.3d 1117, 1120-21 (9th Cir. 2002).

7 Notwithstanding the absence of an objection, the Court has reviewed the R&R and || finds that it is well taken. The Court will accept the R&R and dismiss Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint (Doc. 18) without prejudice as to Defendant J. Olguin only. See 28 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’).

12 IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge || (Doc. 169) is accepted.

14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court enter judgment 15} dismissing Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint (Doc, 18) as to Defendant J. Olguin only filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without prejudice.

17 Dated this 24th day of January, 2024.

18 - 19 A Whacrsay Fotos Micrrey 20 Chief United States District Judge _2-