Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00097/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00097-6/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

AMMAR DEAN HALLOUM, )

)

Plaintiff, ) No. CIV 11-0097-PHX-RCB

)

vs. ) O R D E R

)

CHARLES L. RYAN, et al., )

)

Defendants. ) )

Presently pending before the court is the Report and

Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Jay R. Irwin 

(“R & R”) (Doc. 34), recommending that this action be dismissed

without prejudice as to defendant Itenberg. As fully and soundly

discussed in that R & R, the Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal

pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m) because “[p]laintiff . . . failed to

show good cause or excusable neglect to justify an extension of

time to complete service on Defendant Itenberg.” R & R (Doc. 34)

at 4:15-16.

The R & R was filed and served upon the parties on September

21, 2011. The R & R explicitly advised the parties that, pursuant

Case 2:11-cv-00097-JJT Document 40 Filed 11/16/11 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 This takes into account the additional three days allotted to plaintiff

in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(d) because, as the docket sheet indicates, he was

served by mail.

- 2 -

to Fed.R.Civ.P. 72, they “shall have fourteen (14) days from the

date of service of a copy of this recommendation within which to

file specific written objections with the Court.” Id. at 4:25–26.

None of the parties have filed objections to that R & R, and the

fourteen day time frame for so doing has passed.1

When reviewing an R & R issued by a Magistrate Judge, 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). “Of course, de novo review of a R & R is only

required when an objection is made to the R & R[.]” Wang v.

Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n. 13 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing United

States v. Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en

banc)). That is because “[n]either the Constitution nor the

[Federal Magistrates Act] requires a district judge to review, de

novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves

accept as correct.” Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121 (citations

omitted). Indeed, construing the Federal Magistrates Act, the

Supreme Court has found that that “statute does not on its face

require any review at all, by either the district court or the

court of appeals, of any issue that is not the subject of an

objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88

L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). Consistent with the foregoing authority, the

court has not conducted a de novo review of the pending R & R

because the parties did not file any objections thereto. 

Having reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s R & R, and no

Case 2:11-cv-00097-JJT Document 40 Filed 11/16/11 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 -

objections having been filed by any party thereto, the court hereby

incorporates and adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and

Recommendation in its entirety (Doc. 34). In accordance therewith,

IT IS ORDERED that:

(1) pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m), the claims as against

defendant Itenberg are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

DATED this 16th day of November, 2011.

Copies to all counsel of record and plaintiff, pro se

Case 2:11-cv-00097-JJT Document 40 Filed 11/16/11 Page 3 of 3