Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01922/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01922-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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

Mark John Blair, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Phoenix Police Department et al, 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-01922 PHX NVW (JI)

ORDER

Before the court is Magistrate Judge Irwin’s Report and Recommendation (“R & R”)

(doc. # 52) recommending that this action be dismissed without prejudice as a sanction for

repeated failure to comply with discovery orders. No objections were filed.

Because Plaintiff did not file objections, the court need not review any of the

Magistrate Judge’s determinations on dispositive matters. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003);

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 not the subject of an objection.”). The absence of a

timely objection also means that error may not be assigned on appeal to any defect in the

rulings of the Magistrate Judge on any non-dispositive matters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a)

(“Within 10 days after being served with a copy of the magistrate judge’s order, a party may

serve and file objections to the order; a party may not thereafter assign as error a defect in

the magistrate judge’s order to which objection was not timely made.”); Simpson v. Lear

Case 2:06-cv-01922-NVW Document 53 Filed 11/16/07 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

- 2 -

Astronics Corp., 77 F.3d 1170, 1174 (9th Cir. 1996); Philipps v. GMC, 289 F.3d 1117, 1120-

21 (9th Cir. 2002).

Notwithstanding the absence of an objection, the court has reviewed the R&R and

finds that it is well taken. The court will accept the R&R and dismiss the action without

prejudice. 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”).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate

Judge (Doc. # 52) is accepted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court enter judgment dismissing

this action without prejudice. 

DATED this 15th day of November 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-01922-NVW Document 53 Filed 11/16/07 Page 2 of 2