Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_03-cv-00181/USCOURTS-azd-2_03-cv-00181-1/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

David V. Smith, 

Plaintiff, 

v.

Sheriff Joseph M. Arpaio, 

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-03-181-PHX-DGC (LOA)

ORDER

Pending before the Court is United States Magistrate Judge Lawrence Anderson’s

Report and Recommendation (“R&R”). Doc. #10. The R&R recommends that the Court

dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice for his failure to prosecute and comply with

the Court’s orders. Id. at 2-4 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258,

1260 (9th Cir. 1992) (holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the

pro se plaintiff’s complaint for failing to comply with a court order)). 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 4 (citing United States v. ReynaTapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)).

Case 2:03-cv-00181-DGC Document 11 Filed 03/31/06 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 Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) (“The district judge . . . shall make a de novo

determination . . . of any portion of the magistrate judge’s disposition to which specific

written objection has been made[.]”); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (same); 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 has nonetheless reviewed the R&R and

finds that it is well-taken. The Court will accept the R&R and dismiss the complaint without

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. The Magistrate Judge’s R&R (Doc. #10) is accepted.

2. Plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. #1) is dismissed without prejudice.

3. The Clerk shall terminate this action.

DATED this 31st day of March, 2006.

Case 2:03-cv-00181-DGC Document 11 Filed 03/31/06 Page 2 of 2