Lewis #060567 v. Thornell 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
Charles Lewis,
Plaintiff,
v.
Ryan Thornell, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-24-01252-PHX-SHD (ASB)
ORDER
On February 19, 2026, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation
(“R&R”) recommending that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute
(Doc. 25) be denied. (Doc. 30.) No objections to the R&R have been filed and the
deadline to file has expired. The R&R advised the parties:
The parties shall have 14 days from the date of service of a copy of this
Report and Recommendation within which to file specific written
objections with the Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a),
6(b) and 72. Thereafter, the parties have 14 days within which to file a
response to the objections. Failure to timely file objections to the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation may result in the
acceptance of the Report and Recommendation by the district court without
further review. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th
Cir. 2003).
(Doc. 30 at 6-7.)
This Court “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)(1). As the R&R
Case 2:24-cv-01252-SHD-ASB Document 39 Filed 03/20/26 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
indicated, 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 “any review at all . . . of any
issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985)
(emphasis added); 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.”).
No objections having been received,
IT IS ORDERED that the R&R (Doc. 30) is accepted, and Defendants’ Motion to
Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute, (Doc. 25), is DENIED.
Dated this 20th day of March, 2026.
Case 2:24-cv-01252-SHD-ASB Document 39 Filed 03/20/26 Page 2 of 2