Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_11-cv-08153/USCOURTS-azd-3_11-cv-08153-4/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

1 During this litigation, there has been some confusion as to the

name of this particular defendant. The complaint’s caption names “Robert

Poland” as one of the defendants. Co. (Doc. 1) at 1. The body of that

complaint lists “Robert Polland[,] . . . [,]Assistant Deputy Warden” as

one of the defendants, however. Id. at 2, § B(2). Undoubtedly, this is

the same person and plaintiff was uncertain as to the spelling of this

particular defendant’s name. 

Further confusing the issue as to the correct spelling of this

defendant’s name is the fact that in the first amended complaint (“FAC”),

the caption lists “DEPUTY WARDEN POLLAND” as a defendant, but the FAC later

refers to “Deputy Warden Pollard[.]” FAC (Doc. 15) at 1:15-16; 2:25. Again,

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Danté Shon Gordon )

)

Plaintiff, ) No. CIV 11-8153 PCT RCB (JFM)

)

vs. ) O R D E R

)

Charles L. Ryan, et al. )

)

Defendants. ) )

Currently pending before the court is the Report and

Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge James F.

Metcalf (“R & R”) (Doc. 26), recommending that this action be

dismissed without prejudice as to defendant Darla Elliot and

defendant Pollard.1 As fully and soundly discussed in that 

Case 3:11-cv-08153-RCB Document 27 Filed 11/29/12 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

presumably plaintiff is uncertain as to the exact spelling of this

defendant’s name. Regardless of the spelling, what is clear is that

plaintiff intended to name as a defendant Robert Pollard, who was serving

as the Assistant Deputy Warden at the Kingman Arizona State Prison, Cerbat

Unit, during the relevant time frame. 

2 Calculating the time in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 6, including

allowing three extra days for service in accordance with subsection (d) of

that Rule, means that the parties had until November 26, 2012, by which to

timely file any objections.

- 2 -

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 the remaining Defendants.” R & R

(Doc. 26) at 3:10-11. 

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

November 7, 2012. The R & R explicitly advised the parties

that, pursuant 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 3:20-22. None of the

parties have filed objections to that R & R, and the fourteen

day time frame for so doing has passed.2

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,

Case 3:11-cv-08153-RCB Document 27 Filed 11/29/12 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 -

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

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. 26). In accordance

therewith, IT IS ORDERED that pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m),

the claims as against defendants Darla Elliot and Robert

Pollard are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

DATED this 28th day of November, 2012.

Copies to counsel of record and plaintiff pro se

Case 3:11-cv-08153-RCB Document 27 Filed 11/29/12 Page 3 of 3