Kirby 165484 v. Thornell

6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Brian K irby, ) No. CV-23-02619-PHX-SPL (MTM) ) ) 10 Plaintiff, ) ORDER vs. ) ) ) Ryan Thornell, et al., ) ) 13 Defendants. ) ) 14 ) 15 Plaintiff Brian Kirby filed a Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1). The Honorable Michael T. Morrissey, United States Magistrate Judge, issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 66), recommending the Court dismiss Defendants Ragsdale, Astrada, Davis, and Godlevsky for failure to serve pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).

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 Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (discussing the inherent purpose of limited review 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 the Court’s decision to consider them is discretionary. United States v. Howell, 231 F.3d 6 615, 621–622 (9th Cir. 2000).

7 On October 16, 2024, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why Defendants Ragsdale, Astrada, Davis, and Godlevsky should not be dismissed for failure to complete service (Doc. 62). Plaintiff has not responded or otherwise taken any action. In the R&R, the Magistrate Judge recommends Defendants Ragsdale, Astrada, Davis, and Godlevsky 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 those defendants in this case (Doc. 66 at 3).

14 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. 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.”); 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 to.”).

19 The Court has nonetheless reviewed the R&R and finds that it is well-taken. The Court will thus adopt the R&R in full. 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”); Fed. R. Civ. 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.”). Accordingly, /// /// /// /// 1 IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Michael T. Morrissey’s Report and 2} Recommendation (Doc. 66) is accepted and adopted by the Court.

3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Ragsdale, Astrada, Davis, and 4| Godlevsky are dismissed without prejudice.

5 Dated this 27th day of January, 2025.

8 CRG GS