Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02368/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02368-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Earl Felton Crago, Jr., 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-11-2368-PHX-SMM (JFM)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Magistrate Judge James F. Metcalf’s Report and

Recommendation advising this Court that Defendants Clark and Jorgenson be dismissed

without prejudice from Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint. (Doc. 82.) Petitioner has

filed no objections to the Report and Recommendation. The Court will affirm Judge

Metcalf’s Report and Recommendation.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

When reviewing a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, this Court must

“make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is

made,” and “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)(C); see also Baxter

v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch.

Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983)). Failure to object to a Magistrate Judge’s

recommendation relieves the Court of conducting de novo review of the Magistrate Judge’s

Case 2:11-cv-02368-SMM Document 85 Filed 04/26/13 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 1

The factual and procedural history of this case is set forth in the Magistrate

Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 82).

- 2 -

factual findings; the Court then may decide the dispositive motion on the applicable law.

Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979) (citing Campbell v. United States

Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196 (9th Cir. 1974)).

By failing to object to a Report and Recommendation, a party waives its right to

challenge the Magistrate’s factual findings, but not necessarily the Magistrate's legal

conclusions. Baxter, 923 F.2d at 1394; see also Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th

Cir. 1998) (failure to object to Magistrate’s legal conclusion “is a factor to be weighed in

considering the propriety of finding waiver of an issue on appeal”); Martinez v. Ylst, 951

F.2d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing McCall v. Andrus, 628 F.2d 1185, 1187 (9th Cir.

1980)).

DISCUSSION1

After conducting a thorough legal analysis, the Magistrate Judge concluded that

Petitioner’s claims against Defendants Clark and Jorgenson are subject to dismissal without

prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to effect service. (Doc. 82.) The Magistrate Judge reviewed

Petitioner’s failure to properly serve these Defendants, as well as his failure to show good

cause or excusable neglect to justify his failure. (Id. at 2-3.) Petitioner raises no objection

to the Magistrate Judge’s factual or legal determinations, and after review the Court finds that

the Magistrate Judge properly concluded that Petitioner’s failure to timely serve these

Defendants justifies their dismissal without prejudice from Plaintiff’s suit. 

Therefore, the Court hereby incorporates and adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report

and Recommendation. (Doc. 82.)

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation

of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 82).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Clark and Jorgenson are hereby

Case 2:11-cv-02368-SMM Document 85 Filed 04/26/13 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

dismissed without prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to enter judgment in favor

of Defendants and terminate this action.

DATED this 26th day of April, 2013.

Case 2:11-cv-02368-SMM Document 85 Filed 04/26/13 Page 3 of 3