Campbell #043669 v. Unknown Parties et al

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
Ricky Lee Campbell,
Plaintiff,
v.
Unknown Vargas and Unknown Andersen,
Defendants.
No. CV-24-01797-PHX-JAT (JZB)
ORDER
Pending before the Court is the report and recommendation from Magistrate Judge
Boyle recommending that Defendant Andersen be dismissed for failure to timely serve.
(Doc. 51). The time to file objections to the report and recommendation has expired and
no party filed objections.
A district court’s review of a Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation is
impacted by whether either party has timely objected. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). It is “clear that
the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de
novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114,
1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F.Supp.2d
1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (“Following Reyna-Tapia, this Court concludes that de novo
review of factual and legal issues is required if objections are made, ‘but not otherwise.’”);
Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Ctr. v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 589 F.3d 1027, 1032 (9th
Cir. 2009) (The district court “must review de novo the portions of the [Magistrate Judge’s]
recommendations to which the parties object.”). District courts are not required to conduct
Case 2:24-cv-01797-JAT-JZB Document 52 Filed 05/18/26 Page 1 of 2

- 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
“any review at all ... of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn,
474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (“[T]he court shall make a de
novo determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which
objection is made.”).
There being no objections, the Court accepts the report and recommendation. See
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (“A [district court judge] may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or
in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”). Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 51) is accepted.
Defendant Andersen is dismissed, without prejudice.
Dated this 18th day of May, 2026.
Case 2:24-cv-01797-JAT-JZB Document 52 Filed 05/18/26 Page 2 of 2