Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03258/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03258-1/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

George Crawford, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph M. Arpaio, et al.,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-3258-PHX-JAT

ORDER

On April 6, 2006, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation

recommending that the Complaint in this case be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff

did not file an objection to the Report and Recommendation (Defendant has not been served

or appeared).

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). It is “clear that the

district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if

objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121

(9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F.Supp.2d 1219,

1126 (D.Ariz. 2003) (“Following Reyna-Tapia, this Court concludes that de novo review of

factual and legal issues is required if objections are made, ‘but not otherwise.’”). District

courts are not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject

of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (emphasis added); see also 28

Case 2:05-cv-03258-JAT-GEE Document 9 Filed 04/26/06 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 -

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (“the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the

[report and recommendation] to which objection is made.”).

However, the Court notes that, in contradiction of Reyna-Tapia and Schmidt, the

Magistrate Judge states that her recommendation is subject to the District Court conducting,

“its independent review of the record.” The Court is unclear whether the Magistrate Judge

is attempting to direct this Court to conduct a de novo review or is suggesting some other

standard. Nonetheless, consistent with Reyna-Tapia and Schmidt, this Court has not

conducted any review because no objections were filed. If Plaintiff failed to file objections

in reliance on the Magistrate Judge’s admonition to the District Court, Plaintiff may move

for reconsideration of this Order within thirty days and shall contemporaneously file his

objections with the motion for reconsideration.

Accordingly, because no objections were filed,

IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. #7) is accepted and

adopted, the Complaint is dismissed, without prejudice, and the Clerk of the Court shall enter

judgment accordingly.

DATED this 25th day of April, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-03258-JAT-GEE Document 9 Filed 04/26/06 Page 2 of 2