Primo L Randall v. Unknown Nowlan, et al.

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

9 Primo L Randall, No. CV-25-04520-PHX-SHD 10 Plaintiff, ORDER v. Unknown Nowlan, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) from the Magistrate Judge recommending the Court find Plaintiff has failed to show good cause for failure to prosecute and dismiss the Complaint without prejudice. (Doc. 9.) On January 30, 2026, Plaintiff was provided a service packet and ordered to complete and return it to the Clerk of Court within 21 days. (Doc. 6 at 9.) The service packet was not returned. On March 2, 2026, the Magistrate Judge issued an order directing Plaintiff to show cause within ten days as to why the action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. (Doc.

22 8 at 2.) Plaintiff did not respond to the Court’s Order. Both Orders (Docs. 6 and 8) were mailed to Plaintiff at the address provided, and neither were returned as undeliverable.

24 On March 20, 2026, the Magistrate Judge issued the pending R&R. (Doc. 9.) No objections to the R&R have been filed and the deadline to file has expired. The R&R advised Plaintiff: The parties shall have 14 days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the l Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), 6(b) and 72.

2 Thereafter, the parties have 14 days within which to file a response to the objections. Failure to timely file objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report 3 and Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report and 4 Recommendation by the district court without further review. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003).

5 (Doc. 9 at 4.)

6 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 and | recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna- 10/1 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 1211 concludes that de novo review of factual and legal issues is required if objections are made, 131 ‘but not otherwise.’”’); Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Ctr. v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 589 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 1611 are not required to conduct “any review at all... of any issue that is not the subject of an 17 objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (emphasis added); see also 28 U.S.C. 18 § 636(b)(1) (‘[T]he court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the 19 [report and recommendation] to which objection is made.”’).

20 No objections having been received, 21 IT IS ORDERED that the R&R (Doc. 9) is accepted. The Court finds that Plaintiff 221 has failed to show good cause for failure to prosecute.

23 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing the Complaint (Doc. 1) without 24 prejudice. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly and close this case.

25 Dated this 20th day of April, 2026.

28 si H le Sharad H. Desai United States District Judge -2-