Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-01998/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-01998-1/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

Decarus Lowell Thomas, 

Petitioner, 

v.

Joe Arpaio, et al.,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-04-1998-PHX-DGC (JM)

ORDER

Pending before the Court are Petitioner Decarus Lowell Thomas’s amended civil

rights complaint and United States Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Marshall’s Report and

Recommendation (“R&R”). Docs. ##5, 8. The R&R recommends that the Court dismiss

the amended complaint with prejudice due to plaintiff’s failure to provide a current address

and to prosecute this action. Doc. #8 at 1. 

The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had ten days to file objections to

the R&R and that the failure to timely file objections to any determination of the Magistrate

Judge would be considered a waiver of the right to review of such determination. Id. at 2

(citing [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)]). The parties did not file objections, which relieves the Court

of its obligation to review the R&R. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121; 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.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) (“The district judge . .

Case 2:04-cv-01998-DGC Document 10 Filed 04/14/06 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 -

. shall make a de novo determination . . . of any portion of the magistrate judge’s disposition

to which specific written objection has been made[.]”). 

The Court will accept the R&R and dismiss the complaint with prejudice. 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”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)

(same).

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Marshall’s R&R (Doc. #8) is accepted.

2. Petitioner Decarus Lowell Thomas’s amended civil rights complaint (Doc. #5)

is dismissed with prejudice.

3. The Clerk of Court shall terminate this action.

DATED this 13th day of April, 2006.

Case 2:04-cv-01998-DGC Document 10 Filed 04/14/06 Page 2 of 2