Randall #166584 v. Nowlan 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
Primo L Randall,
Plaintiff,
v.
Unknown Nowlan, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-25-04520-PHX-SHD
ORDER
Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) from the
Magistrate Judge recommending the Court find Plaintiff has failed to show good cause for
failure to prosecute and dismiss the Complaint without prejudice. (Doc. 9.) On January
30, 2026, Plaintiff was provided a service packet and ordered to complete and return it to
the Clerk of Court within 21 days. (Doc. 6 at 9.) The service packet was not returned. On
March 2, 2026, the Magistrate Judge issued an order directing Plaintiff to show cause
within ten days as to why the action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. (Doc.
8 at 2.) Plaintiff did not respond to the Court’s Order. Both Orders (Docs. 6 and 8) were
mailed to Plaintiff at the address provided, and neither were returned as undeliverable.
On March 20, 2026, the Magistrate Judge issued the pending R&R. (Doc. 9.) No
objections to the R&R have been filed and the deadline to file has expired. The R&R
advised Plaintiff:
The parties shall have 14 days from the date of service of a copy of this
recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the
Case 2:25-cv-04520-SHD Document 10 Filed 04/21/26 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
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. 9 at 4.)
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
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. 9) is accepted. The Court finds that Plaintiff
has failed to show good cause for failure to prosecute.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing the Complaint (Doc. 1) without
prejudice. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly and close this case.
Dated this 20th day of April, 2026.
Case 2:25-cv-04520-SHD Document 10 Filed 04/21/26 Page 2 of 2