Olson 059471 v. Thornell

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

9 Christopher Todd Olson, No. CV-24-01755-PHX-SHD (MTM) 10 Plaintiff, ORDER v. Unknown Smith, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) from the Magistrate Judge recommending that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, (Doc. 14), be dismissed without prejudice as to the Doe Defendants under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). (Doc.

18 32.) On March 19, 2025, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file within 120 days a Notice of Substitution, providing the Court with the Doe Defendants’ actual names. (Doc. 13 at 8.)

20 On July 28, 2025, the Magistrate Judge ordered Plaintiff to show cause within ten days as to why this matter should not be dismissed as to the Doe Defendants for failure to provide their actual names. (Doc. 31.) Plaintiff did not respond to the Magistrate Judge’s show cause order.

24 On August 22, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued the pending R&R. (Doc. 32.) No objections to the R&R have been filed and the deadline to file has expired. The R&R advised Plaintiff: 27 The parties shall have 14 days from the date of service of a copy of this Report and Recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), 6(b) and 72.

1 Thereafter, the parties have 14 days within which to file a response to the 2 objections. Failure to timely file objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report and 3 Recommendation by the district court without further review. See United 4 States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003).

5|| (Doc. 32 at 3, 4.)

6 This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 7|| recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). As the R&R g || indicated, it is “clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and g || recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna- Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original); Schmidt v. || Johnstone, 263 F.Supp.2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (“Following Reyna-Tapia, this Court concludes that de novo review of factual and legal issues is required if objections are made, || ‘but not otherwise.””); Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Ctr. v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 589 14|| F.3d 1027, 1032 (9th Cir. 2009) (the district court “must review de novo the portions of □□ the [Magistrate Judge’s] recommendations to which the parties object.”). District courts 16|| are not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an 17|| objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (emphasis added); see also 28 U.S.C. || § 636(b)(1) ([T]he court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the || [report and recommendation] to which objection is made.”).

20 No objections having been received, 71 IT IS ORDERED that the R&R (Doc. 32) is accepted. The Amended Complaint || is dismissed, without prejudice, as to the Doe Defendants under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

73 Dated this 2nd day of October, 2025.

24 □ 25 ) 2 | □ 38 H ) le Sharad H. Desai United States District Judge _2-