Opinion
No. CV 05-4089-PHX-JAT.WO.
July 25, 2006
ORDER
On March 31, 2006, the Magistrate Judge ordered Plaintiff to show cause why this case should not be dismissed. (Doc. #5). Plaintiff failed to respond and on April 26, 2006, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation ("RR") (Doc. #7) recommending that this case be dismissed.
Neither party has filed objections to the RR. Accordingly, the Court hereby accepts the RR. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (finding that district courts are not required to conduct "any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection" (emphasis added)); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) ( en banc) ("statute makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise" (emphasis in original)); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F.Supp.2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003).
Defendant has not been served and has not appeared.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. #7) is ACCEPTED; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to comply with Court orders pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b); and the clerk of the court shall enter judgment accordingly.