Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00590/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00590-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Tommy Lee Brownen
Plaintiff
Unknown Giovani
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

 

 On March 20, 2014, Plaintiff Tommy Lee Brownen, who is confined in the La 

Palma Correctional Center, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 

1983 (Doc. 1). The Honorable Mark E. Aspey, United States Magistrate Judge, issued a 

Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 14), recommending that the Court dismiss 

the Complaint due to Plaintiff’s failure to return a service packet and thereby effect 

service through the United States Marshals Service on the only defendant in this matter. 

Judge Aspey advised Plaintiff that he had fourteen (14) days to file objections to the 

R&R and that failure to file timely objections could be considered a waiver of the right to 

obtain review of the R&R. (Doc. 14 at 4-5.) See also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 6, 72; United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). 

 No objection has been filed, which relieves the Court of its obligation to review 

the R&R. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121; 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.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge must determine de 

Tommy Lee Brownen, 

 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Unknown Giovani, 

Defendant. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

No. CV-14-00590-PHX-SPL

ORDER 

Case 2:14-cv-00590-SPL Document 15 Filed 10/03/14 Page 1 of 2
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 

novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.”). 

The Court has nonetheless reviewed the R&R and finds that it is well-taken. The Court 

will adopt the R&R and dismiss the Complaint. 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”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge 

may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or 

return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.”). Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED:

1. That Magistrate Judge Mark E. Aspey’s Report and Recommendation 

(Doc. 14) is accepted and adopted by the Court; 

2. That the Complaint (Doc. 1) is dismissed without prejudice; 

3. That the reference to Magistrate Judge Mark E. Aspey be withdrawn; and 

4. That the Clerk of Court shall terminate this action. 

 Dated this 3rd day of October, 2014.

Honorable Steven P. Logan

United States District Judge

Case 2:14-cv-00590-SPL Document 15 Filed 10/03/14 Page 2 of 2