Brown v. Unknown Party

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

9 Tad Ryan Brown, No. CV-24-01284-PHX-JZB 10 Plaintiff, ORDER v. Unknown Party, 13 Defendant.

15 This matter was assigned to Magistrate Judge John Z. Boyle. (Doc. 3). On March 31, 2025, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation with this Court.1 (Doc. 19). The Magistrate Judge has recommended that this action be dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to timely serve the Defendant2 and for failure to comply with the 1 This case is assigned to a Magistrate Judge. However, not all parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge. Thus, the matter is before this Court pursuant to General Order 21-25, which states in relevant part: 21 When a United States Magistrate Judge to whom a civil action has been assigned pursuant to Local Rule 3.7(a)(1) considers dismissal to be 22 appropriate but lacks the jurisdiction to do so under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) due to incomplete status of election by the parties to consent or not consent 23 to the full authority of the Magistrate Judge, 24 IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge will prepare a Report and Recommendation for the Chief United States District Judge or designee.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED designating the following District Court 26 Judges to review and, if deemed suitable, to sign the order of dismissal on my behalf: Phoenix/Prescott: Senior United States District Judge Stephen M.

28 McNamee Plaintiff requested a subpoena to ascertain the identity of Defendant and filed proof of Court’s orders. To date, no objections have been filed.

2 STANDARD OF REVIEW 3 The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991). Parties have fourteen days from the service of a copy of the Magistrate’s recommendation within which to file specific written objections to the Court. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, 72. Failure to object to a Magistrate Judge’s recommendation relieves the Court of conducting de novo review of the Magistrate Judge’s factual findings and waives all objections to those findings on appeal. See Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998). A failure to object to a Magistrate Judge’s conclusion “is a factor to be weighed in considering the propriety of finding waiver of an issue on appeal.” Id. 13 DISCUSSION 14 Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and no Objections having been made by any party thereto, the Court finds dismissal to be appropriate. The docket shows that Plaintiff sought and was provided permission to serve third-party subpoenas in order to ascertain the identity of the appropriate defendant in July of 2024. (Doc. 16). Plaintiff filed proof of service of the subpoenas on August 16, 2024. (Doc. 17). Plaintiff then made no more filings and sought no further extension of Plaintiff’s time to effect service pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). On November 16, 2024, the Magistrate Judge ordered Plaintiff to show cause why this matter should not be dismissed for failure to effect service. (Doc. 18). Plaintiff made no response. Nearly four months later, the Magistrate Judge issued the instant Report and Recommendation that this action be dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to serve and failure to follow the Court’s orders. (Doc. 19). As Plaintiff has made no objection or responded in any other fashion to the Report and Recommendation, the Court finds that this matter should be dismissed and hereby incorporates and adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report service of such subpoena on XXX. Thereafter, Plaintiff made no additional filings. |) and Recommendation.

2 CONCLUSION 3 Accordingly, for the reasons set forth, 4 IT IS ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate 5|| Judge. (Doc. 19).

6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing without prejudice Plaintiff's claims for failure to effect timely service and for failure follow the Court’s orders.

8 Dated this 5th day of May, 2025. — Lig Vom 10 Stephen M. McNamee 11 Senior United States District Judge _3-