Opinion
No. CV-05-4041-PHX-DGC (MEA).
June 22, 2006
ORDER
Pending before the Court are Plaintiff Steven James civil rights complaint and United States Magistrate Judge Mark E. Aspey's Report and Recommendation ("RR"). Docs. ##1, 8. The RR recommends that the Court dismiss the complaint for failure to serve the Defendant and failure to comply with the Court's Order of January 11, 2006. Doc. #8 at 2. The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had ten days to file objections to the RR and that the failure to timely file objections to any determination of the Magistrate Judge would be considered a waiver of the right to review of such determination. Id. at 2-3 (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)).
The parties did not file objections, which relieves the Court of its obligation to review the RR. 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) ("The district judge . . . shall make a de novo determination . . . of any portion of the magistrate judge's disposition to which specific written objection has been made[.]"). The Court will accept the RR 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) (same).
IT IS ORDERED:
1. Magistrate Judge Mark E. Aspey's RR (Doc. #8) is accepted.
2. Plaintiff Steven James' complaint (Doc. #1) is dismissed.
3. The Clerk of Court shall terminate this action.