Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00191/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00191-1/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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

 

 On December 24, 2014, Plaintiff Ricardo Ramirez, who is confined in the Arizona 

State Prison Complex in Florence, Arizona, filed a pro se civil rights First Amended 

Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 20). The Honorable Bridget S. Bade, 

United States Magistrate Judge, issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 

30), recommending that the Court dismiss the Complaint due to Plaintiff’s failure to 

return a service packet and thereby effect service through the United States Marshals 

Service on the only defendant in this matter. 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 

(1985) (“[Section 636(b)(1)] does not . . . require any review at all . . . of any issue that is 

Ricardo Ramirez, 

 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Arizona Department of Corrections, et 

al., 

Defendants. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

No. CV-14-00191-PHX-SPL (BSB)

ORDER 

Case 2:14-cv-00191-SPL Document 31 Filed 08/14/15 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 

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. 30) 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 14th day of August, 2015.

Honorable Steven P. Logan

United States District Judge

 

Case 2:14-cv-00191-SPL Document 31 Filed 08/14/15 Page 2 of 2