Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01870/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01870-2/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Ernesto Alonso Flores-Munoz, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph Arpaio, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-1870-PHX-JAT

ORDER

On February 14, 2006, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss (Doc. #8). Plaintiff did

not respond to the motion. Thereafter, Defendant moved for summary adjudication of the

motion due to Plaintiff's failure to respond (Doc. #11). 

On April 3, 2006, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation (Doc.

#10) recommending that the case be dismissed for failure to prosecute pursuant to Rule

41(b). The R&R further recommends that the dismissal be with prejudice.

Neither party has filed objections to the R&R. Accordingly, the Court hereby accepts

the R&R. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (finding that district courts are not

required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection”

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

banc) (“statute makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s

findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise” (emphasis

in original)); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F.Supp.2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003).

Case 2:05-cv-01870-JAT-JR Document 12 Filed 08/03/06 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 -

However, the Court notes that, in contradiction of Reyna-Tapia and Schmidt, the

Magistrate Judge states that the recommendation is subject to the District Court conducting,

“its independent review of the record.” The Court is unclear whether the Magistrate Judge

is attempting to direct this Court to conduct a de novo review or is suggesting some other

standard. Nonetheless, consistent with Reyna-Tapia and Schmidt, this Court has not

conducted any review because no objections were filed. If Plaintiff (or Defendant) failed to

file objections in reliance on the Magistrate Judge’s admonition to the District Court, either

party may move for reconsideration of this Order within thirty days and shall

contemporaneously file such parties’ objections with the motion for reconsideration.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc.

#10) is ACCEPTED; 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that both pending motions are denied as moot; and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment of

dismissal with prejudice.

DATED this 3rd day of August, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-01870-JAT-JR Document 12 Filed 08/03/06 Page 2 of 2