Howard Cochran v. Josef Edwin Thomas, et al.

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

9 Howard Cochran, No. CV-23-02402-PHX-MTL 10 Plaintiff, ORDER v. Josef Edwin Thomas, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 Before the Court is the January 28, 2026 Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) of Magistrate Judge James F. Metcalf.

17 The R & R advised Plaintiff of his right to file objections with this Court within 14 days. Plaintiff did not file any objections within the deadline.

19 The Court notes that the docket shows that at least two items mailed to Plaintiff were returned by the United States Postal Service as undeliverable. (See Docs. 80, 81) Pursuant to General Order 14-10, the Court discontinued mailing documents to Plaintiff at the undeliverable address. As the R & R indicates (Doc. 83 at 3-5), a party has a duty to inform the court, proactively, of any changes to his or her address. Fidelity Philadelphia Tr. Co. v. Pioche Mines Consol., Inc. 587 F.2d 27, 29, (9th Cir. 1978). It is not the Court’s duty to search for a party’s new mailing address. Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1441 (9th Cir. 1988). This obligation applies with equal force to unrepresented prisoners.

27 . . . .

1 In reviewing an R & R, the Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, 2|| the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

3|| “[T]he district judge must review the magistrate judge's finding and 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); see Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, || 149 (1985) (finding that the District Court need not conduct “any review at all... of any || issue that is not the subject of an objection’).

8 No objections having been received, the Court will accept and adopt the R & R in its entirety.

10 Accordingly, 11 IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 83) is accepted as || follows: 13 1. The reference to the Magistrate Judge is withdrawn.

14 2. Pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this action is || dismissed without prejudice.

16 IT IS FURTHER ORERED that the Clerk of Court must enter judgment || accordingly and close this case.

18 Dated this 17th day of February, 2026.

Mi Chak T. Sibude Michael T. Liburdi 22 United States District Judge -2-