REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

DEBORAH M. FINE, Magistrate Judge.

TO THE HONORABLE G. MURRAY SNOW, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:

This matter is before the undersigned on referral from the District Judge (Doc. 13). Because a magistrate judge cannot decide a "matter dispositive of a claim or defense or a prisoner petition challenging the conditions of confinement," Rule 72(b)(1), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the undersigned recommends as follows.

Plaintiff filed his Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint (Doc. 1) on May 10, 2017. On October 10, 2017, District Judge Snow issued an Order (Doc. 13) screening the Complaint. The Order (Doc. 13) stated, "Although Plaintiff states a claim against Doe I, service on Doe I will not be ordered at this time, but Plaintiff will be granted 60 days in which to attempt to learn the identity of Doe I and file a notice of substitution" (Doc. 13 at 1).

The last day to submit discovery requests was on March 20, 2018 (Doc. 28 at 1). On April 12, 2018, the Court entered an order to show cause (Doc. 45) giving Plaintiff 21 days to show cause why Defendant Doe I should not be dismissed from this case for failure to file a timely notice of substitution regarding Defendant Doe I.

On April 27, 2018, Plaintiff responded to the order to show cause by requesting a court order for disclosure of the identity of Defendant Doe I or, in the alternative, for substitution of Stacy Crabtree for Defendant Doe I (Doc. 49). Stacy Crabtree had been dismissed as a defendant in the screening and service Order of October 10, 2017 (Doc. 13). No reasons were given by Plaintiff regarding why previously dismissed Stacy Crabtree should now be substituted for Defendant Doe I. On May 2, 2018, the Court entered an order denying Plaintiff's request for a court order for disclosure of the identify of Defendant Doe I or for substitution of Stacy Crabtree for Defendant Doe I (Doc. 51). The Court stated that "the Court does not conduct investigation or discovery on the part of any litigant" (Doc. 51). The Court also noted that Stacey Crabtree had been previously dismissed by the screening and service Order on October 10, 2017, see Doc. 10 (Doc. 51).

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Defendant Doe I be dismissed without prejudice for Plaintiff's failure to timely file a notice of substitution as specified by the Court in the screening and service Order of October 10, 2017 (Doc. 13).

This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the District Court's judgment.

Pursuant to Rule 72(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties shall have fourteen (14) days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the Court. Thereafter, the parties have fourteen (14) days within which to file a response to the objections. Pursuant to Rule 7.2, Local Rules of Civil Procedure for the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, objections to the Report and Recommendation may not exceed seventeen (17) pages in length. Failure to timely file objections to any factual or legal determinations of the Magistrate Judge will be considered a waiver of a party's right to de novo appellate consideration of the issues. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Failure to timely file objections to any factual or legal determinations of the Magistrate Judge will constitute a waiver of a party's right to appellate review of the findings of fact and conclusions of law in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the recommendations of the Magistrate Judge.