Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00688/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00688-1/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 

Michael J. Salazar, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Arizona Department of Corrections, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-15-00688-PHX-DJH

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court Pending before the Court is a Report and 

Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge James F. Metcalf (“R & R”) (Doc. 

29), recommending that this action be dismissed in its entirety without prejudice. Also 

pending before the Court is a motion for summary judgment by defendant Marlene 

Coffey (Doc. 23). 

I. Background 

On February 22, 2016, in recommending dismissal, Judge Metcalf engaged in the 

multi-factor analysis which this Circuit requires before such dismissal may be granted as 

a sanction pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2)(A)(v). (Doc. 29 at 2:10-3:17). 

The R & R explicitly advised the parties that, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 72, they 

“shall have fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation 

within which to file specific written objections with the Court.” (Doc. 29 at 3:26-28). 

The R & R also explicitly advised the parties that "[f]ailure to timely file objections to 

any factual determinations of the Magistrate Judge will be considered a waiver of a 

Case 2:15-cv-00688-DJH Document 31 Filed 03/11/16 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 

party’s right to de novo consideration of the issues, . . . , and will constitute a waiver of a 

party's right to appellate review of the findings of fact in an order or judgment entered 

pursuant to the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge[.]” (Id. at 4:1-6) (citation 

omitted). None of the parties have filed objections to that R & R, and the 14 day time 

frame for so doing has passed. 

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, because no objections to the R & R were 

filed, the Court has not conducted a de novo review. The Court has reviewed the R & R 

however and finds that it is soundly reasoned. In light of the foregoing, the Court hereby 

incorporates and adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation in its 

entirety (Doc. 29). 

 Adopting the R & R means that this action is dismissed without prejudice to 

renew. Such dismissal renders moot defendant Coffey’s summary judgment motion. 

 Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Metcalf’s R & R (Doc. 29) is accepted 

and adopted as the Order of this Court; 

Case 2:15-cv-00688-DJH Document 31 Filed 03/11/16 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 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING as moot Defendant Coffey’s motion 

for summary judgment (Doc. 23); and 

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(f), 37(b)(2)(A)(v), 

and 41, this action is dismissed without prejudice. 

Dated this 11th day of March, 2016. 

Honorable Diane J. Humetewa

United States District Judge 

Case 2:15-cv-00688-DJH Document 31 Filed 03/11/16 Page 3 of 3