Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02372/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02372-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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

JWB

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Mike Paul Densmore, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

City of Mesa, et al.,

Defendants, 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

No. CV 12-2372-PHX-ROS (JFM) 

ORDER 

Pending before the Court is Magistrate Judge Metcalf’s Report and Recommendation

as to Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss (Docs 42, 38). The Magistrate Judge recommended that

(1) Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss be granted with respect to Plaintiff’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim,

and (2) this action be dismissed with prejudice (Doc. 42). The Magistrate Judge further

advised the parties that they had fourteen days to file objections to the R&R (Doc. 42 at 3-4

(citing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)). No objections were filed.

Because the parties did not file objections, the Court need not review any of the

Magistrate Judge’s determinations on dispositive matters. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.

R. Civ. P. 72(b); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 112 (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 absence of a timely objection

also means that error may not be assigned on appeal to any defect in the Magistrate Judge’s

ruling on any non-dispositive matters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) (“A party may serve and file

objections to the order within 14 days after being served with a copy [of the magistrate’s

order]. A party may not assign as error a defect in the order not timely objected to.”);

Case 2:12-cv-02372-ROS Document 43 Filed 01/06/14 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

Simpson v. Lear Astronics Corp., 77 F.3d 1170, 1174 (9th Cir. 1996); Philipps v. GMC, 289

F.3d 1117, 1120-21 (9th Cir. 2002). 

Notwithstanding the absence of an objection, the Court has reviewed the R&R and

finds that it is well-taken because the record establishes Plaintiff’s intent to permanently

dismiss this action. The Court will therefore accept the R&R, grant Plaintiff’s motion to

dismiss, and dismiss this action with prejudice.

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 42) is accepted.

(2) Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 38) is granted.

(3) This action is dismissed with prejudice and the Clerk of Court must enter judgment

accordingly. 

DATED this 6th day of January, 2014.

Case 2:12-cv-02372-ROS Document 43 Filed 01/06/14 Page 2 of 2