Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01302/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01302-2/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 

Hisrael Sanchez, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Arizona Department of Corrections, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-14-01302-PHX-DJH

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation of United States 

Magistrate Judge Eileen S. Willett (“R & R”) (Doc. 32), recommending that this action 

be dismissed without prejudice as to Defendant Cardenas. 

I. Background 

As the R & R explains, pro se Plaintiff Sanchez has not been able to serve process 

upon Defendant Cardenas because he is no longer with the Arizona Department of 

Corrections. Thereafter, despite being ordered “to show cause why Defendant Cardenas 

should not be dismissed without prejudice from this action for failure to serve pursuant to 

Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 16.2(b)(2)(B)(ii) of the Local 

Rules of Civil Procedure[,]” Plaintiff did not respond. R & R (Doc. 2 at 2:6-10). In 

accordance with these Rules and taking into account the relevant factors, Judge Willett 

recommended dismissal without prejudice as to Defendant Cardenas because Plaintiff 

Sanchez did not serve this particular Defendant. (Id. at 3:7-9). 

Case 2:14-cv-01302-DJH-ESW Document 41 Filed 10/27/15 Page 1 of 3
- 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 

 The R & R explicitly advised the parties that, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 72, they 

“shall have fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation 

within which to file specific written objections with the Court.” R & R (Doc. 32 at 3:13-

15). The R & R also explicitly advised the parties that "[f]ailure to timely file objections 

to any factual determinations of the Magistrate Judge may be considered a waiver of a 

party’s right to appellate review of the findings of fact in an order or judgment entered 

pursuant to a Magistrate Judge’s recommendation.” (Id. at 3:16-19) (citations omitted). 

None of the parties have filed objections to that R & R, and the 14 day time frame for so 

doing has long since passed. 

II. Analysis 

 When reviewing an R & R issued by a Magistrate Judge, this court “may accept, 

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

magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). “Of course, de novo review of a R & R is only 

required when an objection is made to the R & R[.]” Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 

1000 n. 13 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing United States v. Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th

Cir. 2003) (en banc)). That is because “[n]either the Constitution nor the [Federal 

Magistrates Act] requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and 

recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct.” Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 

at 1121 (citations omitted). Indeed, construing the Federal Magistrates Act, the Supreme 

Court has found that that “statute does not on its face require any review at all, by either 

the district court or the court of appeals, of any issue that is not the subject of an 

objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). 

 Consistent with the foregoing authority, the Court has not conducted a de novo 

review of the pending R & R because the parties did not file any objections thereto. 

Having reviewed the Magistrate Judge's R & R, and no objections having been filed by 

any party thereto, the Court hereby incorporates and adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report 

and Recommendation in its entirety (Doc. 32). 

. . . . 

Case 2:14-cv-01302-DJH-ESW Document 41 Filed 10/27/15 Page 2 of 3
- 3 - 

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 

 Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Willett’s R&R (Doc. 32) is accepted 

and adopted as the Order of this Court; and 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m), this action is 

dismissed without prejudice to renew as to Defendant Cardenas. 

 Dated this 27th day of October, 2015. 

Honorable Diane J. Humetewa

United States District Judge 

Case 2:14-cv-01302-DJH-ESW Document 41 Filed 10/27/15 Page 3 of 3