Charles Lewis v. Ryan Thornell, et al.

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

9 Charles Lewis, No. CV-24-01252-PHX-SHD (ASB) 10 Plaintiff, ORDER v. Ryan Thornell, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 On February 19, 2026, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute (Doc. 25) be denied. (Doc. 30.) No objections to the R&R have been filed and the deadline to file has expired. The R&R advised the parties: 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 21 objections with the Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), 6(b) and 72. Thereafter, the parties have 14 days within which to file a 22 response to the objections. Failure to timely file objections to the 23 Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report and Recommendation by the district court without 24 further review. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th 25 Cir. 2003). (Doc. 30 at 6-7.)

This Court “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)(1). As the R&R || indicated, it is “clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings 2|| 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); 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. 7|| Bureau of Land Mgmt., 589 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 are not required to conduct “any review at all... of any □□ issue that is not the subject of an 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.”).

14 No objections having been received, 15 IT IS ORDERED that the R&R (Doc. 30) is accepted, and Defendants’ Motion to || Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute, (Doc. 25), is DENIED.

17 Dated this 20th day of March, 2026.

19 / 20 2 / 22 H le Sharad H. Desai 23 United States District Judge -2-