Garrison v. NaphCare Incorporated

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Terry Lee Garrison,
Plaintiff,
v.
NaphCare Incorporated, et al.,
Defendants.
NO. CV-24-01407-PHX-SMM (MTM)
ORDER
Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Michael T. Morrissey’s Report and
Recommendation. (Doc. 70). The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court dismiss
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint without prejudice as to Defendants Grace Adams, Siji
Thomas, and Rodney Stewart pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure for failure to prosecute. (Id.) For the following reasons, the Court adopts the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation.
I. BACKGROUND
On August 21, 2024, Plaintiff Terry Lee Garrison filed a pro se civil rights
Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 9). Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint
against Defendants NaphCare Incorporated, Grace Adams, Siji Thomas, Michael
Braithwaite, Unknown Humphries, Bellene Racowsky, Unknown Forehand, Rodney
Stewart filed by Terry Lee Garrison on July 22, 2025. (Doc. 63). On July 23, 2025, the
Court issued an Order dismissing Count IV of the Amended Complaint as well as
Case 2:24-cv-01407-SMM-MTM Document 71 Filed 11/05/25 Page 1 of 3

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Defendants Braithwaite, Racowsky, Humphries, and Forehand from the entirety of this
action. (Doc. 64). The Court then directed the Clerk of Court to send service packets to
Plaintiff to send to Defendants Adama, Thomas, and Stewart. (Id.). After Plaintiff did not
return the service packets, on September 23, 2025, the Court ordered that Plaintiff must
either return to the Clerk completed service packets for Defendants or show cause why
this matter should not be dismissed for failure to comply with the Court’s Order. (Doc.
69).
II. DISCUSSION
On October 20, 2024, Magistrate Judge Michael T. Morrissey issued a Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 70), recommending that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s
Amended Complaint without prejudice as to Defendants Adams, Thomas, and Stewart
pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to prosecute.
The Magistrate Judge 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. (Id.); see 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 id.; 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 agrees that Plaintiff’s failure
return the service packets or otherwise respond to the Court’s Order warrants dismissal of
this action as to Defendants Adams, Thomas, and Stewart 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.”).
Case 2:24-cv-01407-SMM-MTM Document 71 Filed 11/05/25 Page 2 of 3

- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge. (Doc. 70.)
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing without prejudice Plaintiff’s
Amended Complaint (Doc. 63) and this action as to Defendants Grace Adama, Siji
Thomas, and Rodney Stewart pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
Dated this 5th day of November, 2025.
Case 2:24-cv-01407-SMM-MTM Document 71 Filed 11/05/25 Page 3 of 3