Hall v. Lasalle Corrections West LLC 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
Marco Wayne Hall,
Plaintiff,
v.
Lasalle Corrections West LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
NO. CV-24-02107-PHX-SMM (MTM)
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
AND ORDER
The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Michael T. Morrissey. (Doc. 2.) On
January 14, 2026, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation with this
Court. 	(Doc. 	37). 	To 	date, 	no 	objections 	have 	been 	filed. 	The 	Magistrate 	Judge
recommends that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Does 1-6 be dismissed without
prejudice under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because Plaintiff
failed to comply with the Court’s Order and file a “Notice of Substitution” providing the
actual names of Defendants Does 1-6. (Id.)
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Court Amay accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate.@ 	28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(C); see Baxter v.
Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991). 	Parties have fourteen days from the
service of a copy of the Magistrate=s recommendation within which to file specific
written objections to the Court. 	28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, 72. 	Failure to
object to a Magistrate Judge=s recommendation relieves the Court of conducting de novo
Case 2:24-cv-02107-SMM-MTM Document 43 Filed 02/09/26 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 of the Magistrate Judge=s factual findings and waives all objections to those
findings on appeal. See Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998). A failure
to object to a Magistrate Judge=s conclusion Ais a factor to be weighed in considering the
propriety of finding waiver of an issue on appeal.@ Id.
DISCUSSION
Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and no
Objections having been made by any party thereto, the Court hereby incorporates and
adopts the Magistrate Judge=s Report and Recommendation. Moreover, Plaintiff failed to
comply with the Court’s Order and file a “Notice of Substitution” providing the actual
names of the Defendants Does 1-6, and the time for doing so has now expired. (Doc. 37).
Accordingly, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Does 1-6
without prejudice under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth,
IT IS ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge. (Doc. 37.)
IT 	IS 	FURTHER 	ORDERED 	dismissing 	Plaintiff’s 	Second 	Amended
Complaint (Doc. 11) without prejudice as to Defendants Does 1-6 under Fed. R. Civ. P.
41(b).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss John
Does #1-6 (Doc. 30) as moot.
Dated this 9th day of February, 2026.
Case 2:24-cv-02107-SMM-MTM Document 43 Filed 02/09/26 Page 2 of 2