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 

Emmsley Ikaika, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Todd Thomas, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV-17-04794-PHX-DLR

ORDER 

 Before the Court is Plaintiff Emmsley Ikaika’s civil rights complaint pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1983 and United States Magistrate Judge Bridget S. Bade’s Report and 

Recommendation (“R&R”). (Docs. 15, 19.) The R&R recommends that this matter be 

dismissed for failure to comply with court orders pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 

 Specifically, on August 3, 2018, the Magistrate Judge screened Plaintiff’s 

complaint and ordered the United States Marshal Service (“USMS”) to serve Defendant 

Thomas. (Doc. 16 at 5.) To facilitate service of process, the Magistrate Judge directed 

Plaintiff to return a completed service packet to the Court within twenty-one days of the 

August 3, 2018 Order. (Id.) Plaintiff, however, failed to do so. Instead, Plaintiff filed a 

motion to postpone the case until he was released from custody (Doc. 17), which the 

Magistrate Judge denied (Doc. 18). The Magistrate Judge, however, extended the 

deadline for Plaintiff to return a completed service package to September 20, 2018, and 

warned Plaintiff that failure to comply with the extended deadline may result in dismissal 
- 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 

of the action without prejudice for failure to comply with the court’s order. (Id. at 2.) 

The deadline passed without Plaintiff submitting a completed service packet or otherwise 

responding the Magistrate Judge’s order. As a result, the Magistrate Judge recommended 

this matter be dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 

 The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had fourteen 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. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 

F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Plaintiff did not file objections, 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 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 accept the R&R and dismiss 

Plaintiff’s civil rights 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.”). 

IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Bades’ R&R (Doc. 19) is ACCEPTED. 

Plaintiff’s civil rights complaint (Doc. 15) is DISMISSED. The Clerk of the Court shall 

terminate this case. 

 Dated this 15th day of November, 2018. 

Douglas L. Rayes 

United States District Judge