Ottley v. Arizona Game and Fish Commission ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 John Randall Ottley, et al., No. CV-22-01087-PHX-DWL 10 Plaintiffs, ORDER 11 v. 12 Arizona Game and Fish Commission, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 This is a civil rights action brought by three pro se plaintiffs. The Court previously 16 accepted Judge Fine’s report and recommendation (“R&R”) that the claims of one of those 17 plaintiffs, Anthony Covell, be dismissed without prejudice due to Covell’s failure to notify 18 the Court of his change of address and failure to comply with LRCiv 83.3(d). (Docs. 11, 19 12.) Now pending before the Court is another R&R from Judge Fine, this one 20 recommending that the claims of the remaining two plaintiffs, John Randall Ottley and 21 James Virgil Harvey, be dismissed without prejudice for failure to timely serve Defendants 22 and failure to comply with court orders. (Doc. 13 at 10.) The R&R further provided that 23 “[t]he parties shall have fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of this [R&R] 24 within which to file specific written objections with the Court. . . . Failure to file timely 25 objections to the [R&R] may result in the acceptance of the [R&R] by the District Court 26 without further review.” (Id. at 11.) 27 Here, no such objections have been filed and the time to object has expired. Thus, 28 the Court accepts Judge’s Fine recommendation. See, e.g., Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985) (“It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review 2|| ofa magistrate’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when || neither party objects to those findings.”); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (“[N]Jo review is required of a magistrate judge’s report and || recommendation unless objections are filed.”’). See also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 6|| 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.”). 8 Accordingly, 9 IT IS ORDERED that: 10 1. The R&R (Doc. 13) is adopted. 11 2. All the unserved Defendants are dismissed without prejudice for failure to 12 || timely serve pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). 13 3. This matter is dismissed without prejudice for Plaintiffs Ottley and Harvey’s failure to comply with Court orders. 15 4. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and terminate this action. 16 Dated this 29th day of November, 2022. 17 18 Lom ee” 19 f □ _o—— Dominic W. Lanza 20 United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 _2-