Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02364/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02364-7/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

Dushan Stephan Nickolich, II,

Plaintiff,

v.

Dora Schriro, et al.,

Defendants. _________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-05-2364-PHX-SMM

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Magistrate Judge Jay R. Irwin’s Report and

Recommendation regarding Petitioner’s Motion for Cause the issue of the dismissal of an

unserved defendant. Petitioner, presently incarcerated in the Arizona State Prison Complex at

Tucson Arizona, filed the Motion for Cause on July 23, 2007 (Doc. 101) seeking to extend the

time to effect service on Defendant McCauley. On July 27, 2007 Respondents filed their

Response thereto (Doc 102), opposing the motion, and seeking dismissal of Defendant

McCauley. Petitioner then filed a Reply on August 2, 2007 (Doc. 105), opposing the dismissal.

Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 72(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and

Rule 72.2(a)(1), Local Rules of Civil Procedure, Magistrate Judge Irwin made his Report &

Recommendation to this Court.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

When reviewing a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, this Court “must

make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made,”

and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made

by the Magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394

Case 2:05-cv-02364-SMM-JRI Document 118 Filed 10/09/07 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

1

The detailed procedural history of this case is set forth in the Magistrate Judge’s Report

and Recommendation ( Doc. 108).

- 2 -

(9th Cir. 1991) (citing Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir.

1983)). 

By failing to object to a Report and Recommendation, a party waives his right to

challenge the Magistrate’s factual findings, but not necessarily the Magistrate’s legal

conclusions. Baxter, 923 F.2d at 1394; see also Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir.

1998) (failure to object to Magistrate’s legal conclusion “is a factor to be weighed in

considering the propriety of finding waiver of an issue on appeal”); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d

1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing McCall v. Andrus, 628 F.2d 1185, 1187 (9th Cir. 1980)).

DISCUSSION1

 After conducting a thorough legal analysis, Magistrate Judge Irwin determined that

Petitioner failed to establish that he was entitled to any further extension of time to complete

service on Defendant McCauley. Boudette v. Barnette, 923 F.2d 754, 756 (9th Cir.1991).

Having reviewed the legal conclusions of the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate

Judge, the Court agrees that any further extension would in fact be futile and that pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) and Local Civil Rule 16.2(b)(2)(B)(I), Defendant

McCauley should be dismissed without prejudice. Therefore, the Court hereby incorporates

and adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation.

CONCLUSION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation

of Magistrate Judge Jay R. Irwin (Doc. 108).

DATED this 9th day of October, 2007.

Case 2:05-cv-02364-SMM-JRI Document 118 Filed 10/09/07 Page 2 of 2