Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00942/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00942-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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

 

 On May 26, 2015, Plaintiff Jason Lee Stein filed a pro se civil rights Complaint 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1). On August 6, 2015, the Court granted Plaintiff in 

forma pauperis status, screened the Complaint, and ordered the United States Marshal 

Service (USMS) to serve Defendant C. Colburn, the only remaining Defendant in this 

action. (Doc. 10.) After issuing an order to show cause to which Plaintiff failed to 

respond, the Honorable Bridget S. Bade, United States Magistrate Judge, issued a Report 

and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 25), recommending that the Court dismiss the 

Complaint due to Plaintiff’s failure to accomplish service on Defendant Colburn and to 

comply with court orders. Judge Bade advised Plaintiff that he had fourteen (14) days to 

file objections to the R&R and that failure to file timely objections could be considered a 

waiver of the right to obtain review of the R&R. See also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 6, 72; United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). 

 No timely objection has been filed, 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 

Jason Lee Stein, 

 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

T. Zachary, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

No. CV-15-00942-PHX-SPL (BSB)

ORDER 

Case 2:15-cv-00942-SPL Document 26 Filed 05/09/16 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 

(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)(3) (“The district judge must 

determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly 

objected to.”). The Court has nonetheless reviewed the R&R and finds that it is welltaken. The Court will adopt the R&R and dismiss this action. 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)(3) (“The 

district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further 

evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.”). Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED:

1. That Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 25) is accepted 

and adopted by the Court; 

2. That this action is dismissed without prejudice; 

3. That the reference to Magistrate Judge Bridget S. Bade is withdrawn; and 

4. That the Clerk of Court shall terminate this action. 

 Dated this 6th day of May, 2016.

Honorable Steven P. Logan

United States District Judge

 

Case 2:15-cv-00942-SPL Document 26 Filed 05/09/16 Page 2 of 2