Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_13-cv-08140/USCOURTS-azd-3_13-cv-08140-1/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 

Mario William Fragassi, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Unknown Brown, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-13-08140-PCT-GMS

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court are Petitioner’s Civil Rights Complaint and United 

States Magistrate Judge James F. Metcalf’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”). 

Docs. 1, 11. The R&R recommends that the Court dismiss the Complaint without 

prejudice for failure to effect service pursuant to Rule 4(m). Doc. 11 at 3. The 

Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had fourteen days to file objections to the 

R&R and that failure to file timely objections could be considered a waiver of the right to 

obtain review of the R&R. Id. at 3 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72; 

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

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

review the R&R. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121; 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.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge must 

determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly 

objected to.”). The Court has nonetheless reviewed the R&R and finds that it is wellCase 3:13-cv-08140-GMS Document 12 Filed 01/09/14 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 

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)(3) (“The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended 

disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with 

instructions.”). 

IT IS ORDERED:

 1. Magistrate Judge James F. Metcalf’s R&R (Doc. 11) is accepted. 

 2. Plaintiff’s Civil Rights Complaint (Doc. 1) is dismissed without 

prejudice. 

 3. The Clerk of Court shall terminate this action. 

 4. The docket shall reflect that the Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

' 1915(a)(3) and Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(3)(A), that any appeal of 

this decision would not be taken in good faith. 

 Dated this 9th day of January, 2014. 

Case 3:13-cv-08140-GMS Document 12 Filed 01/09/14 Page 2 of 2