Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_13-cv-08048/USCOURTS-azd-3_13-cv-08048-3/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 

Donald Alphonso Allen, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Unknown Party, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-13-08048-PCT-DJH

ORDER 

 Presently pending before the court is the Report and Recommendation of United 

States Magistrate Judge Mark E. Aspey (“R & R”) (Doc. 44), recommending that this 

action be dismissed without prejudice as to defendant Denoyer, the only remaining 

defendant in this action. Also pending before the Court is plaintiff Allen's Motion for 

Appointment of Counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) (Doc 45). 

I. Background 

 As the R & R thoroughly recounts, plaintiff Allen has not effected service of 

process upon defendant Denoyer, although he was given an extra year to so do so, and the 

Court ordered the United States Marshal to assist the plaintiff. As fully and soundly 

discussed in that R & R, the Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal without prejudice 

pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m) because plaintiff Allen did not "serve the only defendant 

remaining in this matter." R & R (Doc. 44) at 7:16. 

 The R & R was filed and served upon the parties on September 11, 2014. The R & 

R explicitly advised the parties that, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 72, they “shall have 

fourteen (14) days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within 

Case 3:13-cv-08048-DJH Document 46 Filed 10/03/14 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 

which to file specific written objections with the Court.” Id. at 8:7-11. The R & R also 

explicitly advised the parties that "[f]ailure to timely file objections to any factual or legal 

determinations of the Magistrate Judge will be considered a waiver of a party’s right to 

de novo appellate consideration of the issues." Id. at 8:15-18 (citation omitted). 

Continuing, the R & R further advised that "[f]ailure to timely file objections to any 

factual or legal determinations of the Magistrate Judge will constitute a waiver of a 

party’s right to appellate review of the findings of fact and conclusions of law in an order 

or judgment entered pursuant to the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge." Id. at 

8:19-24. None of the parties have filed objections to that R & R, and the 14 day time 

frame for so doing has passed.1

 

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 

 

1

 This takes into account the additional three days allotted to the plaintiff in accordance 

with Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(d) because, as the docket indicates, he was served by mail. 

Case 3:13-cv-08048-DJH Document 46 Filed 10/03/14 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 

filed by any party thereto, the Court hereby incorporates and adopts the Magistrate 

Judge's Report and Recommendation in its entirety (Doc. 34). 

 With respect to plaintiff Allen's most recent motion for appointment of counsel 

(his third), the Court denies that motion as moot. Plainly, the dismissal of this motion 

obviates plaintiff's purported need for counsel. 

 In accordance herewith , IT IS ORDERED that: 

 (1) Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m), this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE TO RENEW; and 

 (2) Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(1) is DENIED. 

 Dated this 3rd day of October, 2014. 

Case 3:13-cv-08048-DJH Document 46 Filed 10/03/14 Page 3 of 3