Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00029/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00029-3/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

 Defendant has not been served and has not appeared.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Rodney L. Schneider, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph Arpaio, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-0029-PHX-JAT

ORDER

On October 19, 2006, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation

(“R&R”) (Doc. #9) recommending that this case be dismissed for failure to prosecute. 

Neither party has filed objections to the R&R.1

 Accordingly, the Court hereby accepts

the R&R. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (finding that district courts are not

required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection”

(emphasis added)); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en

banc) (“statute makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s

findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise” (emphasis

in original)); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F.Supp.2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003).

However, the Court notes that, in contradiction of Reyna-Tapia and Schmidt, the

Magistrate Judge states that the recommendation is subject to the District Court conducting,

Case 2:06-cv-00029-JAT Document 11 Filed 02/02/07 Page 1 of 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

2

 Additionally, the Clerk of the Court shall remove the Report and Recommendation

at Doc. #6 from this Court's pending motion list, because the Court resolved that Report and

Recommendation at Doc. #8.

- 2 -

“its independent review of the record.” The Court is unclear whether the Magistrate Judge

is attempting to direct this Court to conduct a de novo review or is suggesting some other

standard. Nonetheless, consistent with Reyna-Tapia and Schmidt, this Court has not

conducted any review because no objections were filed. If Plaintiff failed to file objections

in reliance on the Magistrate Judge’s admonition to the District Court, he may move for

reconsideration of this Order within thirty days and shall contemporaneously file his

objections with the motion for reconsideration.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. #9)

is ACCEPTED; and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute; and the clerk of the court shall enter judgment

accordingly.2

DATED this 1st day of February, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-00029-JAT Document 11 Filed 02/02/07 Page 2 of 2