Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-00406/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-00406-2/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

Shalek E Modee,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Corizon Health, et al.,

Respondents.

No. CV-19-00406-PHX-DLR (JFM)

ORDER 

Before the Court are Plaintiff’s motion to extend time for service on Defendants 

Natasha, Gowey and Vinson (Doc. 128) and motion to extend time for service on 

Defendant Johnson (Doc. 129), along with United States Magistrate Judge James F. 

Metcalf’s two Report and Recommendations (“R&Rs”) (Docs. 179, 180). The first R&R 

recommends that the Court deny Plaintiff’s two motions to extend time for service and

dismiss Defendants Natasha, Gowey, Vinson and Johnson without prejudice. (Doc. 179.) 

The second R&R recommends that the Court dismiss Defendant Loyd without prejudice 

due to Plaintiff’s failure to timely serve Defendant Loyd. (Doc. 180.) 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. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Neither 

party filed 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 

Case 2:19-cv-00406-DLR-JFM Document 192 Filed 12/11/19 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

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.”). “Unless this 

court has definite and firm conviction that the [Magistrate Judge] committed a clear error 

of judgment, [this court] will not disturb [the] decision.” Jackson v. Bank of Hawaii, 902 

F.2d 1385, 1387 (9th Cir. 1990) (citation omitted).

The Court has nonetheless independently reviewed the R&Rs and finds that they

are well-taken. The Court therefore will accept the R&Rs in their entirety. 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 that Magistrate Judge Metcalf’s R&Rs (Docs. 179, 180) are

ACCEPTED. Plaintiff’s motions to extend (Docs. 128, 129) are DENIED and Defendants

Natasha, Gowey, Vinson, Johnson, and Loyd are DISMISSED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE.

Dated this 10th day of December, 2019.

Douglas L. Rayes

United States District Judge

Case 2:19-cv-00406-DLR-JFM Document 192 Filed 12/11/19 Page 2 of 2