Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02494/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02494-1/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 1

 Defendants have not been served and have not appeared.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Paul Rhodes, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Kim Kumar, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-2494-PHX-JAT

ORDER

On March 6, 2007, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation

(“R&R”) (Doc. #18) recommending that this case be dismissed for failure to serve and failure

to pay the filing fee. 

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).

Case 2:05-cv-02494-JAT Document 19 Filed 04/05/07 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 -

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

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

“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, Plaintiff 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.

#18) is ACCEPTED; and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE for Plaintiff's failure to serve and failure to pay filing fee; and the clerk of the

court shall enter judgment accordingly. 

DATED this 5th day of April, 2007.

Case 2:05-cv-02494-JAT Document 19 Filed 04/05/07 Page 2 of 2