Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01401/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01401-1/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

DERRIN MORENO, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

JOSEPH ARPAIO, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 06-1401-PHX-DGC (BPV)

ORDER

Before the court is Plaintiff's pro se Civil Rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 (doc. # 1). On September 25, 2006, United State Magistrate Judge Bernardo P.

Velasco issued a Report and Recommendation ("R & R) (Doc. # 9) in accordance with 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The R&R recommended that the complaint be dismissed. No

objections to the R&R were filed.

A party may file specific, written objections to an R&R within ten days after being

served with a copy the R&R. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Court

must undertake a de novo review of those portions of the R&R to which specific objections

are made. See id.; Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia,

328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or

in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1).

Case 2:06-cv-01401-DGC Document 11 Filed 10/12/06 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 -

The parties did not file objections, which relieves the Court of its obligation to review

the R&R. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003); 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.”). The Court accordingly will accept

the R&R. 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”).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED accepting the Report and Recommendation of

Magistrate Judge Velasco (doc. # 9).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's pro se Civil Rights Complaint pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (doc. #1) is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b), Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure, for failure to prosecute.

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

accordingly and terminate this action.

DATED this 12th day of October, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-01401-DGC Document 11 Filed 10/12/06 Page 2 of 2