Opinion
CV-21-01784-PHX-DJH
10-03-2023
William Buford, Plaintiff, v. David Shinn, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
HONORABLE DIANE J. HUMETEWA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) issued by United States Magistrate Judge Eileen S. Willett on September 15, 2023 (Doc. 105). In the R&R, Judge Willett recommends that Defendant Correctional Officer II Wills (“Defendant Wills”) be dismissed from this action without prejudice because the extended service deadline has passed and Plaintiff William Buford neither served Defendant Wills nor responded to the Court's August 16, 2023, Order to Show Cause (Doc. 103). (Doc. 105 at 1-3).
On June 29, 2022, the Court substituted Defendant Wills for Defendant Jane Doe I. (Docs. 63 at 3; 62).
In its June 15, 2023, Order (Doc. 100), the Court granted Plaintiff's “Motion for Request of an Extension of Time to Serve Defendant COII Willis [Jane Doe] in Civil Action” (Doc. 98). The Court extended the time for service of process for Defendant Wills an additional forty-five days from June 15, 2023, or until July 30, 2023. (Doc. 100 at 2).
Judge Willett advised the parties that they had fourteen days to file objections and that the failure to file timely objections “may result in the acceptance of the Report and Recommendation by the District Court without further review.” (Id. at 3) (citing United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). No objections have been filed and the time to do so has expired. Absent any objections, the Court is not required to review the findings and recommendations in the R&R. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1989) (The relevant provision of the Federal Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), “does not on its face require any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”); Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121 (same); 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.”).
Nonetheless, the Court has reviewed the R&R and agrees with its findings and recommendations. The Court will therefore accept the R&R and adopt Judge Willett's recommendations. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) (“A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3) (same).
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Willett's September 15, 2023, Report and Recommendation R&R (Doc. 105) is accepted and adopted as the order of this Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Correctional Officer II Wills is dismissed from this action without prejudice. There being no remaining defendants, the Clerk of Court is kindly directed to terminate this action and enter judgment.
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Plaintiff William Buford's Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 107) is denied as moot.