Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03523/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03523-2/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

Christos Pergakis, 

Plaintiff, 

v.

Joseph M. Arpaio,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-05-3523-PHX-DGC (MEA)

ORDER

Pending before the Court are Plaintiff Christos Pergakis’ civil rights complaint and

United States Magistrate Judge Mark E. Aspey’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”).

Docs. ##1, 6. The R&R recommends that the Court dismiss the complaint without prejudice

for failure to comply with Rule 3.4, Local Rules of Civil Procedure for the United States

District Court for the District of Arizona and Rule 41(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Doc. #6 at 2. The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had ten days to file

objections to the R&R and that the failure to timely file objections to any determination of

the Magistrate Judge would be considered a waiver of the right to review of such

determination. Id. at 2-3 (citing [28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 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) (“The district judge . . . shall make a de novo

Case 2:05-cv-03523-DGC Document 8 Filed 05/12/06 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 -

determination . . . of any portion of the magistrate judge’s disposition to which specific

written objection has been made[.]”). 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) (same).

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Magistrate Judge Mark E. Aspey’s R&R (Doc. #6) is accepted.

2. Plaintiff Christos Pergakis’ civil rights complaint is dismissed without

prejudice.

3. The Clerk of Court shall terminate this action.

DATED this 11th day of May, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-03523-DGC Document 8 Filed 05/12/06 Page 2 of 2