Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00270/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00270-3/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Charles H. Roop, )

)

Plaintiff, ) No. CIV 12-0270 PHX RCB (JFM)

)

vs. ) O R D E R

)

Charles L. Ryan, et al. )

)

Defendants. ) )

Presently pending before the court is the Report and

Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge James L.

Metcalf (“R & R”) (Doc. 22), recommending that this action be

dismissed without prejudice as to defendant Manuel Joseph

Credio. As fully and soundly discussed in that R & R, the

Magistrate Judge recommends dismissal pursuant to

Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m) because “[p]laintiff . . . failed to show

good cause or excusable neglect to justify an extension of

time to complete service on Defendant Credio.” R & R 

(Doc. 22) at 3:6-7.

The R & R was filed and served upon the parties on 

Case 2:12-cv-00270-RCB Document 23 Filed 11/08/12 Page 1 of 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

1 This takes into account the additional three days allotted to

plaintiff in accordance with Fed. R.Civ.P. 6(d) because, as the docket

sheet indicates, he was served by electronic means. 

- 2 -

October 18, 2012. 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 which to file specific written

objections with the Court.” Id. at 3:16-17. None of the

parties have filed objections to that R & R, and the fourteen

day time frame for so doing has passed.1

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, 106 S.Ct.

466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). Consistent with the foregoing

Case 2:12-cv-00270-RCB Document 23 Filed 11/08/12 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

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 filed by any party thereto, the court

hereby incorporates and adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report

and Recommendation in its entirety (Doc. 22). In accordance

therewith, IT IS ORDERED that:

(1) pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m), the claims as against

defendant Credio are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

DATED this 8th day of November, 2012.

Copies to counsel of record and plaintiff pro se

Case 2:12-cv-00270-RCB Document 23 Filed 11/08/12 Page 3 of 3