Opinion
CV-22-00196-PHX-MTL (DMF)
10-03-2022
Michael Travis Patterson, Plaintiff, v. Robert B Patterson, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
MICHAEL T. LIBURDI UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This is a pro se prisoner civil rights action referred to Magistrate Judge Deborah M. Fine for pretrial proceedings. (Doc. 8.)
On July 28, 2022, Judge Fine issued a report and recommendation (“R&R”) recommending this action be dismissed for Plaintiff's failure to timely serve any of the named Defendants. (Doc. 12 at 1.) The R&R stated that “[t]he parties shall have fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the Court.” (Id. at 7.)
The deadline to file objections has passed and Plaintiff has not filed any objections. The docket reflects that the R&R was returned as undeliverable due to Plaintiff's failure to update his address. (Doc. 13.) It is Plaintiff's responsibility to update the Court of his whereabouts. In the Notice of Assignment filed February 4, 2022, Plaintiff was advised of his obligation to file a Notice of Change of Address and warned that failure to comply would result in his case being dismissed. (Doc. 3 at 2.) Moreover, the Court is not required to review any portion of an R&R to which no specific objection has been made. See, e.g., 1 Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985) (“It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate's factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.”); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[T]he district judge must review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.”).
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:
1. The R&R (Doc. 12) is accepted.
2. Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 1) and this action are dismissed.
3. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly and terminate this action. 2