Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01590/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01590-1/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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Armando Hernandez, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Lonnie G. Stone, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV-14-01590-PHX-DLR

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is United States Magistrate Judge Mark E. Aspey’s 

Report and Recommendation (“R&R”). (Doc. 9.) The R&R recommends that the Court 

dismiss the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute. (Doc. 9 at 6.) The 

Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had fourteen days to file objections to the 

R&R and that failure to file timely objections could be considered a waiver of the right to 

obtain review of the R&R. (Id. at 6 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); United States v. ReynaTapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)). 

 The parties did not file objections, which relieves the Court of its obligation to 

review the R&R. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121; Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 

(1985) (“[Section 636(b)(1)] does not . . . require any review at all . . . of any issue that is 

not the subject of an objection.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge must 

determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly 

objected to.”). The Court has nonetheless reviewed the R&R and finds that it is wellCase 2:14-cv-01590-DLR Document 11 Filed 03/09/15 Page 1 of 2
- 2 - 

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 

taken. The Court will accept the R&R and dismiss the action. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) 

(stating that the district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the 

findings or recommendations made by the magistrate”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The 

district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further 

evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.”). 

IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Aspey’s R&R (Doc. 9) is accepted. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1) is dismissed 

without prejudice. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall terminate this action. 

 Dated this 9th day of March, 2015. 

Douglas L. Rayes 

United States District Judge

Case 2:14-cv-01590-DLR Document 11 Filed 03/09/15 Page 2 of 2