Hill #282429 v. Cordray 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
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Justin Dwayne Hill,
Plaintiff,
v.
Jessica Cordray, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-25-03266-PHX-GMS (MTM)
ORDER
Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of
Magistrate Judge Michael T. Morrissey (Doc. 54) regarding Plaintiff’s failure to comply
with the Court’s Order (Doc. 7) in his failure to file a Notice of Substitution providing the
actual name of Defendant Unknown Officer #1. Thereafter the Court issued an Order
requiring Plaintiff to show cause why this action should not be dismissed as to the Doe
Defendant for failure to comply with the Cout’s Order. (Doc. 36). Plaintiff has failed to
respond to and comply with the Court’s Orders.
The R&R recommends that Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1) be dismissed without
prejudice as to Defendant Unknown Officer #1 pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). No
objections were filed.
Because the parties did not file objections, the Court need not review any of the
Magistrate Judge’s determinations on dispositive matters. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72(b); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003);
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (“[Section 636(b)(1)] does not . . . require any
Case 2:25-cv-03266-GMS-MTM Document 77 Filed 05/28/26 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
review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”). The absence of a
timely objection also means that error may not be assigned on appeal to any defect in the
rulings of the Magistrate Judge on any non-dispositive matters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) (“A
party may serve and file objections to the order within 14 days after being served with a
copy [of the magistrate’s order]. A party may not assign as error a defect in the order not
timely objected to.”); Simpson v. Lear Astronics Corp., 77 F.3d 1170, 1174 (9th Cir. 1996);
Phillips v. GMC, 289 F.3d 1117, 1120-21 (9th Cir. 2002).
Notwithstanding the absence of an objection, the Court has reviewed the R&R and
finds that it is well taken. The Court will accept the R&R and dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint
without prejudice as to Defendant Unknown Officer #1. 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”).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge (Doc. 54) is accepted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court dismiss without prejudice
Defendant Unknown Officer #1 pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED in light of the absence of any objections to the R&R,
the party’s have waived their right to appellate review of this order adopting the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72.
Dated this 27th day of May, 2026.
Case 2:25-cv-03266-GMS-MTM Document 77 Filed 05/28/26 Page 2 of 2