Demarcus Montroy Johnson v. Jerry Sheridan, et al.

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

9 Demarcus Montroy Johnson, No. CV-25-02963-PHX-GMS 10 Plaintiff, ORDER v. Jerry Sheridan, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Michael T. Morrissey’s October 20, 2025 Report and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s Complaint and this action be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

18 (Doc. 11). Plaintiff had 14 days after being served with a copy of the Report and Recommendation to file any objections. (R&R at p. 4).

20 On October 31, 2025, the Report and Recommendation mailed to Plaintiff was returned as Undeliverable, “Return to Sender – No Longer In Custody”. (Doc. 12).

22 On December 17, 2025, Plaintiff filed an unsigned Notice of Change of Address (Doc. 13), dated September 19, 2025. On December 18, 2025, the Clerk’s Office regenerated the NEF attaching Judge Morrissey’s R&R to the address listed on Plaintiff’s Notice of Change of Address.

26 On January 7, 2026, the Court issued an order to Plaintiff that within 14 days of the filing date of its Order that Plaintiff must file a completed and signed Certificate certifying that Plaintiff’s signature on the Certification shall serve as the original signature on Plaintiff’s Notice of Change of Address. The Court further ordered Plaintiff would have 14 days from the filing date of the Order to file and serve written objections to the Report and Recommendation. Further, Plaintiff was warned that if Plaintiff failed to timely comply with the Court’s orders, the Court will adopt the Report and Recommendation and dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint without prejudice (Doc. 15)..

6 Judge Morrissey’s R&R recommends Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for Plaintiff’s failure to participate meaningfully in this action or comply with Court Orders. (Doc. 11).

9 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 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 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); Phillips v. GMC, 289 F.3d 1117, 1120-21 (9th Cir. 2002).

20 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 this matter without prejudice. 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”).

24 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 11) is accepted.

26 / / / / / / / / / 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Clerk of the Court enter judgment dismissing 2|| Plaintiff's Complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1) without prejudice. The || Clerk shall terminate this action.

4 Dated this 16th day of March, 2026.

7 Senior United States District Judge _3-