Eric Lee Hasselbrock v. John Scott Wilson

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

9 Eric Lee Hasselbrock, No. CV-25-08195-PCT-JJT (MTM) 10 Plaintiff, ORDER v. John Scott Wilson, 13 Defendant.

15 At issue is the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 18, “R&R”) entered by United States Magistrate Judge Michael T. Morrissey recommending that Plaintiff‘s claims against Defendant be dismissed without prejudice under Rules 4(m) and 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In the R&R, Judge Morrissey warned the parties that they would 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.” (R&R at 5.) Judge Morrissey further warned that “failure to timely file objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation may result in the acceptance of the report and recommendation by the district court without further review,” citing United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Judge Morrissey also warned that “failure to timely file objections to any factual determinations of the magistrate judge will be considered a waiver of a party’s right to appellate review of the findings of fact in an order of judgment entered pursuant to [the R&R].”

1 The R&R was entered onto the docket, and is therefore deemed served, January 29, 2026. The parties therefore had until February 12, 2026 to file any objections.

3 Mr. Hasselbrock never filed an objection, either within the time period he was warned about or since. He did file a notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on February 13, 2026. But the notice of appeal had no effect because, as Judge Morrissey stated in the R&R, “this recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district court’s judgment.” There has been no entry of judgment in this matter by the district court.

11 The Court is thus empowered to accept the recommendations in the R&R without further process and dismiss this matter without prejudice. However, in light of the fact that Mr. Hasselbrock is a non-law-trained self-represented litigant, the Court entertains the possibility that his errant filing of a notice of appeal with the Ninth Circuit was actually an attempt to object to the R&R, and if so construed, would only have been one day late, which the Court would find good cause for excusing. Thus the court will deem Mr. Hasselbrock’s filing as an objection timely filed and consider it on its merits.

18 But turning to the merits, Mr. Hasselbrock fails to demonstrate that the R&R, or any of its findings, were in error. Mr. Hasselbrock attached several records of communications with various process servers in an attempt to demonstrate that he had effected service of the summons and complaint on Defendant Mr. Wilson. But all of the communications from the process servers confirm that service was unsuccessful in each server’s attempt.

23 Mr. Hasselbrock also attaches copies demonstrating a certified mailing of the summons and complaint to Mr. Wilson. But as Mr. Hasselbrock was warned by Judge Morrissey previously, service by certified mail is not an approved or acceptable method of service under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court thus overrules Plaintiff’s objections.

27 The Court also will deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Default and Motion for Entry of Default Judgment (Docs. 16, 17). Service never having been completed on Defendant, he || cannot have defaulted. The Court also will deny Plaintiff's Application for leave to proceed 2|| in forma pauperis (Doc. 20) as moot.

3 For all of these reasons, 4 IT IS ORDERED overruling Plaintiff's Objections (Doc. 19.)

5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED adopting the R&R entered in this matter by Judge || Morrissey (Doc. 18.)

7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing the Complaint (Doc. 1) and this matter || without prejudice. The clerk of court shall enter judgment and close this case.

9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying as moot the Motions at Docs. 16, 17 and 20.

11 Dated this 23rd day of March, 2026. CN 12 “wok: United State$District Judge _3-