Noah Well Taylor v. City of Prescott, et al.

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

9 Noah Well Taylor, No. CV-25-08132-PCT-ROS 10 Plaintiff, ORDER v. City of Prescott, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending dismissal of Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to serve Defendants and failure to comply with multiple court orders. (Doc. 6.) Neither party filed objections to the R&R. The Court will accept and adopt the R&R as follows.

19 I. BACKGROUND 20 On June 23, 2025, Plaintiff Noah Well Taylor filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1.) The Court ordered Plaintiff to serve the six named Defendants by October 17, 2025. (Doc. 4.) After Plaintiff failed to serve Defendants, the Court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to show cause on or before December 9, 2025, why his claims should not be dismissed. (Doc. 5.)

25 After Plaintiff failed to respond to the Court’s show cause order, Magistrate Judge John Z. Boyle issued an R&R recommending dismissal of Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to serve Defendants and failure to comply with multiple court orders. (Doc. 6.) To date, Plaintiff has not served any Defendant and has not responded to the Court’s orders.

1 II. LEGAL STANDARD 2 A district judge “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). The district court must review de novo the portions to which an objection is made. Id. When no objection is made, the district court need only review de novo a magistrate judge’s conclusions of law.

6 See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing Turner v. Duncan, 158 7 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998)).

8 III. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 9 In the R&R, the Magistrate Judge recommended the Complaint be dismissed because there is no good cause to excuse Plaintiff’s failure to serve Defendants. (Doc. 6 at 3.) The Magistrate Judge also considered the Ferdik factors, see Ferdick v. Bonzelet, 963 12 F.2d 1258, 1260 (1992), in recommending dismissal for failure to comply with court orders under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: 14 Here, the first, second, and third factors favor dismissal of this case. The fourth factor, as always, weighs against dismissal. With regard to the fifth 15 factor, the Court has considered whether there are less drastic sanctions available, and finds there are none. Plaintiff was given ample time to serve 16 the Defendants in this action. Additionally, Plaintiff was put on notice twice that he was required to serve the Defendants in this action.

18 (Doc. 6 at 4.)

19 As explained in the R&R, Plaintiff has failed to timely serve Defendants and to comply with multiple court orders. The Court finds the R&R is thorough and well- reasoned, without any clear error of law or fact. See United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 22 614, 617–18 (9th Cir. 1989). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court accepts and adopts the R&R as the opinion of the Court. For the reasons stated in the R&R, the Court dismisses the Complaint and all Defendants without prejudice.

25 Accordingly, 26 IT IS ORDERED the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 6) is adopted as the opinion of the Court.

28 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Complaint (Doc. 1) and all Defendants are || DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment 2|| in favor of Defendants and close this case.

3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to mail this Order to 4|| Plaintiff's address listed on the docket and to email this Order to Plaintiff's email address: || [email protected].

6 Dated this 14th day of April, 2026.

7 fo . ? Honorable Roslyn ©. Silver 10 Senior United States District Judge _3-