Opinion
No. CV-19-05089-SPL (JFM)
05-21-2021
Jonathan Tate, Plaintiff, v. Unknown Hernandez, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
On September 4, 2019, Plaintiff filed a pro se complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1). On Aril 21, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Extension of Time for Service (Doc. 61). On April 29, 2021, the Honorable James F. Metcalf, United States Magistrate Judge, issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") (Doc. 62), recommending that the Court deny Plaintiff's Motion and dismiss Defendant Hernandez and this case without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). Judge Metcalf advised Plaintiff that he 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. See also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, 72; United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003).
No timely objection has been filed, 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 has nonetheless reviewed the R&R and finds that it is well-taken. The Court will thus adopt the R&R in full. 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."). Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 62) is accepted and adopted by the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time for Service (Doc. 61) is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Hernandez and this case are dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).
Dated this 21st day of May, 2021.
/s/_________
Honorable Steven P. Logan
United States District Judge