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

 

 Plaintiff Shaykh Muhammad Abdul Aziz Klalid Bin Talal Al Saud has filed a pro 

se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1). The Honorable James F. 

Metcalf, United States Magistrate Judge, issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) 

(Doc. 40), recommending the Court dismiss without prejudice Defendant Young from 

Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to serve pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). 

Plaintiff has filed an objection to the R&R (Doc. 44). 

A district judge “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). See also 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.”). 

When a party files a timely objection to an R&R, the district judge reviews de novo those 

portions of the R&R that have been “properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). A 

proper objection requires specific written objections to the findings and recommendations 

in the R&R. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003); 28 

Shaykh Muhammad Abdul Aziz Klalid 

Bin Talal Al Saud, 

 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Paul Penzone, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

No. CV-18-00305-PHX-SPL (JFM) 

ORDER 

 
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 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). It follows that the Court need not conduct any review of portions to 

which no specific objection has been made. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121; see also 

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (discussing the inherent purpose of limited review 

is judicial economy). Further, a party is not entitled as of right to de novo review of 

evidence or arguments which are raised for the first time in an objection to the R&R, and 

the Court’s decision to consider them is discretionary. United States v. Howell, 231 F.3d 

615, 621-622 (9th Cir. 2000). 

In the R&R, the Magistrate Judge recommends that Defendant Young be dismissed 

pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, reasoning that Plaintiff has 

failed to show that good cause or excusable neglect justifies a further extension of time to 

accomplish service. Although Plaintiff has objected to the R&R, his objection does not 

point to any specific flaw in the Magistrate Judge’s analysis or findings. Instead, he 

explains the difficulty he has had in filing a change of address and requests this Court order 

Defendant Young to answer the Complaint (Doc. 44). Plaintiff does not, however, address 

the fact that the service packed was returned unexecuted (Doc. 18).1

 Ultimately, the 

circumstances identified by Plaintiff do not qualify as good cause to excuse the delay. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge James F. Metcalf’s Report and 

Recommendation (Doc. 40) is accepted and adopted by the Court. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint as to Defendant Young is 

dismissed without prejudice for failure to timely serve pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 4(m). 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

 

1

 The process receipt notes that Defendant Young is no longer employed by the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office and has left no forwarding address. 
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 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter shall remain referred to Magistrate 

Judge James F. Metcalf pursuant to Rules 72.1 and 72.2 of the Local Rules of Civil 

Procedure for all pretrial proceedings as authorized under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

 Dated this 21st day of February, 2019. 

Honorable Steven P. Logan 

United States District Judge