Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_05-cv-00274/USCOURTS-azd-4_05-cv-00274-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 362
Nature of Suit: Medical Malpractice
Cause of Action: 28:2671 Federal Tort Claims 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

WO

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Joseph Molina, et al., 

Plaintiffs,

v.

United States of America, et al., 

Defendants, _______________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV 05-274 TUC DCB

O R D E R

On October 3, 2006, the Honorable Charles R. Pyle, United States Magistrate Judge,

filed a Report and Recommendation in this action. The Report and Recommendation advised

this Court that Plaintiff's action, filed pro se, was subject to dismissal. Plaintiff has failed to

serve the Complaint and failed to show good cause for the failure to serve the Defendants.

Plaintiffs were given a hearing and an extension of time to affect service, but still they failed

to serve the Defendants. Therefore, the Magistrate Judge recommends dismissal of this action

pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires service of a

complaint within 120 days after it is filed with the Court, and pursuant to Rule 41(b) for

Plaintiff's failure to prosecute this case.

The parties were sent copies of the Recommendation and instructed that, pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b), they had 10 days to file written objections to the Recommendation. See also,

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) (party objecting to the recommended disposition has ten

(10) days to file specific, written objections). To date, no such objections have been filed.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), this Court makes a de novo determination as to those

portions of the Report and Recommendation to which there are objections. 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1)(C) ("A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the

Case 4:05-cv-00274-DCB Document 11 Filed 11/30/06 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 -

report or specified proposed findings and recommendations to which objection is made.") To

the extent that no objection has been made, arguments to the contrary have been waived.

McCall v. Andrus, 628 F.2d 1185, 1187 (9th Cir. 1980) (failure to object to Magistrate's report

waives right to do so on appeal); see also, Advisory Committee Notes to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72

(citing Campbell v. United States Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974) (when no timely

objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the

record in order to accept the recommendation).

The Court considers the Report and Recommendation to be thorough and well-reasoned;

it is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617-

618 (9th Cir. 1989). It shall, therefore, be accepted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The

Court adopts it, and for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation, the Court

dismisses this action, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.4(m) for failure to serve the Complaint and

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) because Plaintiff has failed to prosecute this case.

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation [Doc. # 10] is adopted as the

opinion of the Court. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is dismissed without prejudice pursuant

to Rule 4(m) and 41(b); the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly.

DATED this 29th day of November, 2006.

Case 4:05-cv-00274-DCB Document 11 Filed 11/30/06 Page 2 of 2