Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

SHEETS v. CORIZON HEALTH INCORPORATED, CV-15-00499-PHX-GMS. (2015)

Court: District Court, D. Arizona Number: infdco20151119b79 Visitors: 19
Filed: Nov. 17, 2015
Latest Update: Nov. 17, 2015
Summary: ORDER G. MURRAY SNOW , District Judge . Pending before the Court are Plaintiff's Civil Rights Complaint and United States Magistrate Judge James F. Metcalf's Report and Recommendation ("R&R"). Docs. 1, 20. The R&R recommends that the Court dismiss the Complaint without prejudice. Doc. 20 at 3. The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had fourteen 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
More

ORDER

Pending before the Court are Plaintiff's Civil Rights Complaint and United States Magistrate Judge James F. Metcalf's Report and Recommendation ("R&R"). Docs. 1, 20. The R&R recommends that the Court dismiss the Complaint without prejudice. Doc. 20 at 3. The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had fourteen 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 3 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72; 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 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 accept the R&R and dismiss the Complaint without prejudice. 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 ORDERED:

1. Magistrate Judge Metcalf's R&R (Doc. 20) is accepted.

2. Plaintiff's Civil Rights Complaint (Doc. 1) against Defendant Pratt dismissed without prejudice.

3. The Clerk of Court shall terminate Defendant Pratt from this action.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer