Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01927/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01927-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

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 

Jose Renteria, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Wesford Health Sources, Incorporated, et 

al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-14-01927-PHX-NVW (JFM)

ORDER 

Pending before the court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of 

Magistrate Judge James F. Metcalf (Doc. 76) regarding Plaintiff’s failure to show good 

cause or excusable neglect to justify an extension of time to complete service on 

Defendants Unknown Parties. The R&R recommends that pursuant to Rule 4(m), 

Defendants Unknown Parties, named as John Does 1-5, Jane Does 1-5, ABC 

Corporations I-X, ZYX Partnerships 1-5, and Sole Proprietorships 1-5, be dismissed 

without prejudice. The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had fourteen days 

to file objections to the R&R. (R&R at 4 (citing Rule 72, Fed. R. Crim. P.)). No 

objections were filed. 

Because the parties did not file objections, the court need not review any of the 

Magistrate Judge’s determinations on dispositive matters. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003); 

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.”). The absence of a 

Case 2:14-cv-01927-NVW-JFM Document 84 Filed 08/13/15 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 

timely objection also means that error may not be assigned on appeal to any defect in the 

rulings of the Magistrate Judge on any non-dispositive matters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) (“A 

party may serve and file objections to the order within 14 days after being served with a 

copy [of the magistrate’s order]. A party may not assign as error a defect in the order not 

timely objected to.”); Simpson v. Lear Astronics Corp., 77 F.3d 1170, 1174 

(9th Cir. 1996); Phillips v. GMC, 289 F.3d 1117, 1120–21 (9th Cir. 2002). 

Notwithstanding the absence of an objection, the court has reviewed the R&R and 

finds that it is well taken. The court will accept the R&R and dismiss Defendants 

Unknown Parties, named as John Does 1-5, Jane Does 1-5, ABC Corporations I-X, ZYX 

Partnerships 1-5, and Sole Proprietorships 1-5. 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”). 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Report and Recommendation of the 

Magistrate Judge (Doc. 76) is accepted. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court enter judgment 

dismissing without prejudice Plaintiff’s complaint against Defendants Unknown Parties, 

named as John Does 1-5, Jane Does 1-5, ABC Corporations I-X, ZYX Partnerships 1-5, 

and Sole Proprietorships 1-5. 

Dated this 13th day of August, 2015. 

Neil V. Wake

United States District Judge

Case 2:14-cv-01927-NVW-JFM Document 84 Filed 08/13/15 Page 2 of 2