DeLozier #367034 v. Lamb 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
Plaintiff Nicki Suzanne DeLozier filed a Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
(Doc. 1). The Honorable Alison S. Bachus, United States Magistrate Judge, issued a Report
and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 19), recommending the Court dismiss this action for
failure to prosecute and comply with Court orders.
A district judge “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); see also 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.”).
When a party files a timely objection to an R&R, the district judge reviews de novo those
portions of the R&R that have been “properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). A
proper objection requires specific written objections to the findings and recommendations
in the R&R. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1118–19 (9th Cir. 2003);
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). It follows that the Court need not conduct any review of portions to
which no specific objection has been made. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121; see also
Nicki Suzanne DeLozier,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Mark Lamb, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. CV-25-00864-PHX-SPL
ORDER
Case 2:25-cv-00864-SPL Document 21 Filed 03/11/26 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
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (discussing the inherent purpose of limited review
is judicial economy). Further, a party is not entitled as of right to de novo review of
evidence or arguments which are raised for the first time in an objection to the R&R, and
the Court’s decision to consider them is discretionary. United States v. Howell, 231 F.3d
615, 621–622 (9th Cir. 2000).
On January 15, 2026, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file a notice of change of address
or show cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to comply with the
Court’s Order. (Doc. 16). The Order was returned to the Court as undeliverable (Doc. 17),
and Plaintiff has otherwise taken no action. In the R&R, the Magistrate Judge recommends
the action be dismissed in light of Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this action and failure to
comply with the Court’s clear order that she keep the Court apprised of any address
changes.
The parties did not file objections, which relieves the Court of its obligation to
review the R&R. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121; 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 finds that it is well-taken. The Court will
thus adopt the R&R in full. 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.”). Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 19) is accepted and
adopted by the Court.
///
///
///
Case 2:25-cv-00864-SPL Document 21 Filed 03/11/26 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
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Complaint (Doc. 1) is dismissed without
prejudice and the Clerk of Court shall terminate this action.
Dated this 11th day of March, 2026.
Honorable Steven P. Logan
United States District Judge
Case 2:25-cv-00864-SPL Document 21 Filed 03/11/26 Page 3 of 3