Soto 084193 v. Harris ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Angel Soto, No. CV-21-01792-PHX-DWL (CDB) 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 Unknown Harris, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 This is a pro se civil rights action that has been referred to Magistrate Judge Bibles 16 for all pretrial proceedings. (Doc. 6.) 17 On March 22, 2022, Judge Bibles issued a report and recommendation (“R&R”) 18 concluding that Defendant Jordan should be dismissed for failure to serve. (Doc. 42.) The 19 R&R notes that the Court previously ordered the Arizona Department of Corrections, 20 Rehabilitation, and Reentry (“ADCRR”) to disclose the last known address of Defendant 21 Jordan and ordered the United States Marshal to serve Defendant Jordan at that address, 22 but service on Defendant Jordan at the address disclosed by the ADCRR was returned as 23 unexecuted on March 18, 2022 and the Marshal noted that the address provided by the 24 ADCRR was unoccupied and listed as for sale. (Id.) 25 On March 30, 2022, Plaintiff filed objections to the R&R. (Doc. 57.) In paragraph 26 one, Plaintiff notes that he is incarcerated and thus unable to locate Defendant Jordan on 27 his own, but “if this court appoints counsel for Plaintiff appointed counsel can use his or 28 her[] own resources to track down and serve Defendant Jordan.” (Id. at 1.) In paragraph 1 two, Plaintiff notes that, during the discovery process in this case, it is possible that defense 2 counsel will call or subpoena Defendant Jordan, in which case Defendant Jordan’s address 3 will become known. (Id.) In paragraph three, Plaintiff argues that the Court would not be 4 acting as his advocate if it were to rule in his favor. (Id. at 2.) 5 Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), a district judge may “designate a magistrate judge 6 to . . . submit to a judge of the court proposed findings of fact and recommendations for 7 the disposition” of a dispositive matter. Id. “Within fourteen days after being served with 8 a copy [of the R&R], any party may serve and file written objections . . . as provided by 9 rules of court. A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions 10 of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is 11 made. A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings 12 or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge may also receive further 13 evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Id. § 636(b)(1). 14 See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2)-(3) (same). 15 District courts are not required to review any portion of an R&R to which no specific 16 objection has been made. See, e.g., Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985) (“It does 17 not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate’s factual 18 or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to 19 those findings.”); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) 20 (“[T]he district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations 21 de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.”). Thus, district judges need not review 22 an objection to an R&R that is general and non-specific. See, e.g., Warling v. Ryan, 2013 23 WL 5276367, *2 (D. Ariz. 2013) (“Because de novo review of an entire R & R would 24 defeat the efficiencies intended by Congress, a general objection ‘has the same effect as 25 would a failure to object.’”) (citations omitted); Haley v. Stewart, 2006 WL 1980649, *2 26 (D. Ariz. 2006) (“[G]eneral objections to an R & R are tantamount to no objection at all.”). 27 Here, the Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s objections to the R&R and finds them 28 unpersuasive. The R&R is well reasoned at the Court adopts its analysis in full. 1 Accordingly, 2 IT IS ORDERED that: 3 1. The R&R (Doc. 42) is accepted. 4 2. Plaintiff's objections to the R&R (Doc. 57) are overruled. 5 3. Defendant Jordan and Plaintiffs claims against Defendant Jordan are 6 dismissed without prejudice for Plaintiff's failure to timely effect service of 7 process on this Defendant. 8 Dated this 15th day of May, 2022. 9 10 Lm ee” ll f t _o——— Dominic W. Lanza 12 United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3-