Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02210/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02210-3/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Dwight Murray, )

)

Plaintiff, ) No. CIV-11-2210 PHX RCB (JFM)

)

vs. ) O R D E R

)

Corrections Corp. of )

America, Inc., et al. )

)

Defendants. ) )

Currently pending before the court is the Report and

Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge James F.

Metcalf (“R & R”) (Doc. 36), recommending that this action be

dismissed without prejudice as to defendants Joe Stichen and

Lorie LaClare. 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 Defendants Stichen and LaClare.” R & R (Doc.

36) at 3:12–13.

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

Case 2:11-cv-02210-RCB Document 39 Filed 11/13/12 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

- 2 -

23, 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 3:21–23. None of the parties have filed objections to that

R & R, and the fourteen day time frame for so doing has passed.

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

objections having been filed by any party thereto, the court

Case 2:11-cv-02210-RCB Document 39 Filed 11/13/12 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 -

hereby incorporates and adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and

Recommendation in its entirety (Doc. 36). In accordance

therewith, IT IS ORDERED that:

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

defendants Joe Stichen and Lorie LaClare are DISMISSED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE.

DATED this 12th day of November, 2012.

Copies to counsel of record

Case 2:11-cv-02210-RCB Document 39 Filed 11/13/12 Page 3 of 3