Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_21-cv-01784/USCOURTS-azd-2_21-cv-01784-6/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

William Buford,

Plaintiff,

v. 

David Shinn, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-21-01784-PHX-DJH

ORDER 

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

by United States Magistrate Judge Eileen S. Willett on September 15, 2023 (Doc. 105). In 

the R&R, Judge Willett recommends that Defendant Correctional Officer II Wills 

(“Defendant Wills”)1 be dismissed from this action without prejudice because the extended 

service deadline2 has passed and Plaintiff William Buford neither served Defendant Wills 

nor responded to the Court’s August 16, 2023, Order to Show Cause (Doc. 103). 

(Doc. 105 at 1–3). 

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

that the failure to file timely objections “may result in the acceptance of the Report and 

Recommendation by the District Court without further review.” (Id. at 3) (citing United 

1 On June 29, 2022, the Court substituted Defendant Wills for Defendant Jane Doe I. 

(Docs. 63 at 3; 62).

2

In its June 15, 2023, Order (Doc. 100), the Court granted Plaintiff’s “Motion for Request 

of an Extension of Time to Serve Defendant COII Willis [Jane Doe] in Civil Action” 

(Doc. 98). The Court extended the time for service of process for Defendant Wills an 

additional forty-five days from June 15, 2023, or until July 30, 2023. (Doc. 100 at 2).

Case 2:21-cv-01784-DJH Document 108 Filed 10/04/23 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

States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). No objections have been filed 

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 adopt Judge Willett’s 

recommendations. 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 Willett’s September 15, 2023, Report and 

Recommendation R&R (Doc. 105) is accepted and adopted as the order of this Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Correctional Officer II Wills is 

dismissed from this action without prejudice. There being no remaining defendants, the 

Clerk of Court is kindly directed to terminate this action and enter judgment. 

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Plaintiff William Buford’s Motion to Appoint 

Counsel (Doc. 107) is denied as moot. 

Dated this 3rd day of October, 2023.

Honorable Diane J. Humetewa

United States District Judge

Case 2:21-cv-01784-DJH Document 108 Filed 10/04/23 Page 2 of 2