Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_23-cv-01931/USCOURTS-azd-2_23-cv-01931-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Grace Adams
Defendant
Luis Baca
Plaintiff
NaphCare Incorporated
Defendant
Siji Thomas
Defendant

Document Text:

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

Luis Baca,

Plaintiff,

v. 

NaphCare Incorporated, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-23-01931-PHX-GMS

ORDER 

Plaintiff Luis Baca, who was previously confined in the Arizona State Prison 

Complex-Barchey Unit,1 brought this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against 

NaphCare Incorporated and Nurse Practitioners Grace Adams and Siji Thomas (Doc. 1). 

Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (R&R) of Magistrate Judge Michael 

T. Morrissey recommending that the Court dismiss this action without prejudice based on 

Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute (Doc. 21).2 The Court will adopt the R&R and dismiss the 

action without prejudice.

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). It is “clear that 

the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de 

novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 

1

 Plaintiff has since been released from the Arizona State Prison Complex (See Docs. 20, 

22).

2

 Notably, mail sent to Plaintiff’s last known address was returned to the Court as 

undeliverable stating that Plaintiff was released from custody (Doc. 20). Plaintiff has not 

apprised the Court of a new address as required by the Court’s Local Rules and the July 

15, 2024 Screening Order (Doc. 17).

Case 2:23-cv-01931-GMS Document 23 Filed 12/16/24 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

1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc); accord Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 

1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (“[f]ollowing Reyna-Tapia, this Court concludes that de novo review 

of factual and legal issues is required if objections are made, ‘but not 

otherwise’”); Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Ctr. v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 589 F.3d 

1027, 1032 (9th Cir. 2009) (the district court “must review de novo the portions of the 

[magistrate judge’s] recommendations to which the parties object”). District courts are not 

required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of 

an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (emphasis added); see also 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (“[a] judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those 

portions of the [R&R] to which objection is made”).

Neither party filed objections to the Court’s September 16, 2024 R&R. The Court 

is therefore not obligated to review the R&R. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 

1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“[t]he district judge must

determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly 

objected to”). 

Even so, the Court has reviewed Judge Morrissey’s R&R. The R&R did note that 

Plaintiff failed to return the service packet as to any of the Defendants. On August 26, 

2024, the Court ordered that “Plaintiff must either return to the Clerk completed service 

packets for Defendants, or show cause why this matter should not be dismissed for failure 

to comply with the Court’s Order, pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure.” (Doc. 19). Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s Orders and the time 

for doing so has expired. 

The Court therefore accepts and adopts the R&R. The action is dismissed without 

prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the Court’s orders. See Ferdik 

v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (a district court may dismiss an action 

for failure to comply with any order of the Court).

IT IS ORDERED:

Case 2:23-cv-01931-GMS Document 23 Filed 12/16/24 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

(1) The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 21) is adopted, and the action is 

dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the 

Court’s orders. 

(3) The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly and terminate the 

action.

Dated this 16th day of December, 2024.

Case 2:23-cv-01931-GMS Document 23 Filed 12/16/24 Page 3 of 3