Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-01265/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-01265-0/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

Larry Bernard Long, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV-15-1265-PHX-DJH

ORDER 

 This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) 

issued by United States Magistrate Judge Deborah M. Fine on February 25, 2016. (Doc. 

38). In the R&R, Judge Fine recommends dismissing Defendant May because he has not 

been served in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m) and LRCiv 16.2(b)(2)(B)(ii). As the 

R&R states, service was attempted on Defendant May but was returned unexecuted on 

August 31, 2015, indicating he was no longer employed by the Arizona Department of 

Corrections. (Doc. 38 at 1-2). No forwarding address was provided. Judge Fine then 

granted Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant May’s last known address under seal and 

multiple extensions of time to complete service. Those efforts, however, were 

unsuccessful and Defendant May was never served. 

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

that the failure to file timely objections "will be considered a waiver of a party’s right to 

de novo appellate consideration of the issues.” (Doc. 38 at 3-4) (citing United States v. 

Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc)). The parties have not filed 

Case 2:15-cv-01265-DJH-DMF Document 42 Filed 03/29/16 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 

objections and the time to do so has expired. Absent any objections, the Court is not 

required to review the findings and recommendations in the R&R. See Thomas v. Arn, 

474 U.S. 140, 149 (1989) (The relevant provision of the Federal Magistrates Act, 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), “does not on its face require any review at all . . . of any issue that 

is not the subject of an objection.”); Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121 (same); 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.”). 

 Nonetheless, the Court has reviewed the R&R and agrees with its findings and 

recommendations. The Court will, therefore, accept the R&R and dismiss Defendant 

May from this action. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) (“A judge of the court may accept, 

reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the 

magistrate judge.”); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3) (same). 

 Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Fine's R&R (Doc. 38) is accepted and 

adopted as the order of this Court. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant May is dismissed from this action. 

Dated this 29th day of March, 2016. 

Honorable Diane J. Humetewa

United States District Judge 

 

Case 2:15-cv-01265-DJH-DMF Document 42 Filed 03/29/16 Page 2 of 2