Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_22-cv-01612/USCOURTS-azd-2_22-cv-01612-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Rick Valentini,

Plaintiff,

v. 

David Shinn, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-22-01612-PHX-MTL

ORDER 

Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 57) 

from Magistrate Judge Deborah M. Fine, recommending the claim against Defendant 

Bomboy, and hence this action, be dismissed without prejudice for failure to serve pursuant 

to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).

Plaintiff was given fourteen days from the date of service of the R&R to file specific 

written objections with the Court.* 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). No 

objections have been received. Therefore, the Court will accept and adopt 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”; see also 

* On October 23, 2024, the Court was informed Plaintiff Rick Valentini was moved to a 

different unit in the Arizona State Prison Complex. (Doc. 58.) The Court’s docket indicates 

that a copy of the R&R was sent Plaintiff’s new address on October 24, 2024. The timeline

for Plaintiff to respond, therefore, began on that date and ran on November 7, 2024.

Moreover, Rule 83.3(d) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure states “an unrepresented 

party who is incarcerated must submit a notice within seven (7) days after the effective 

date of the change.” Plaintiff never complied with this rule, despite being specifically 

warned on October 24, 2024, about the requirement (Doc. 58) and being obviously aware 

of its existence since he had filed numerous notices during this litigation (Docs. 11, 17, 20, 

22, 26, 36, 44.)

Case 2:22-cv-01612-MTL Document 59 Filed 12/19/24 Page 1 of 2
- 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

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

the “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).

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 57) is accepted. 

Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 19) is dismissed without prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall enter a judgment of 

dismissal and close this case.

Dated this 18th day of December, 2024.

Case 2:22-cv-01612-MTL Document 59 Filed 12/19/24 Page 2 of 2