Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_06-cv-00148/USCOURTS-azd-4_06-cv-00148-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Kevin E. Pesqueira,

Plaintiff,

v.

Clarence Dupnick, et al., 

Defendant, _______________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV 06-148 TUC DCB

O R D E R

On April 16, 2007, the Honorable Jacqueline Marshall, United States Magistrate Judge,

filed a Report and Recommendation in this action. The Report and Recommendation advised

the Court to dismiss this case pursuant to Rule 4(m) because Plaintiff has not served his

Complaint on the Defendant. He has been given notice, an opportunity to show cause why the

case should not be dismissed, and an opportunity to object to the recommendation of dismissal.

Specifically, the parties were sent copies of the Report and Recommendation and

instructed that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), they had 10 days to file written objections to

the Recommendation. See also, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) (party objecting to the

recommended disposition has ten (10) days to file specific, written objections). To date, no such

objections have been filed.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), this Court makes a de novo determination as to those

portions of the Report and Recommendation to which there are objections. 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1)(C) ("A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the

report or specified proposed findings and recommendations to which objection is made.") To

the extent that no objection has been made, arguments to the contrary have been waived.

McCall v. Andrus, 628 F.2d 1185, 1187 (9th Cir. 1980) (failure to object to Magistrate's report

Case 4:06-cv-00148-JR Document 7 Filed 06/08/07 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 -

waives right to do so on appeal); see also, Advisory Committee Notes to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72

(citing Campbell v. United States Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974) (when no timely

objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the

record in order to accept the recommendation).

The Court considers the Report and Recommendation to be thorough and well-reasoned;

it is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617-

618 (9th Cir. 1989). The Report and Recommendation shall, therefore, be accepted pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court adopts the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. For the

reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation, the Court dismisses this action without

prejudice.

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation [Doc. # 6] is adopted as the

opinion of the Court. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is dismissed, without prejudice, for failure

to timely serve the Complaint. The Clerk of the Court shall close this case.

DATED this 7th day of June, 2007.

Case 4:06-cv-00148-JR Document 7 Filed 06/08/07 Page 2 of 2