Opinion
No. CV-16-02970-PHX-DKD
03-14-2018
Leticia Cruz, Plaintiff, v. Jim Earl, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
Pending before the Court is United States Magistrate Judge David K. Duncan's Report and Recommendation ("R&R"), which recommends dismissal of Defendants Earl from this action, (Doc. 30). The Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff that she 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. Id. at 2 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, 6(a), 6(b); 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 will accept the R&R and dismiss Defendants Earl from this action. 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 THEREFORE ORDERED that Judge Duncan's R&R (Doc. 30) is ACCEPTED and Defendants Jim Earl and Unknown Earl are DISMISSED from this action for want of prosecution.
Dated this 14th day of March, 2018.
/s/_________
Honorable G. Murray Snow
United States District Judge