Cochran v. Thomas 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
Howard Cochran,
Plaintiff,
v.
Josef Edwin Thomas, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-23-02402-PHX-MTL
ORDER
Before the Court is the January 28, 2026 Report and Recommendation (“R & R”)
of Magistrate Judge James F. Metcalf.
The R & R advised Plaintiff of his right to file objections with this Court within 14
days. Plaintiff did not file any objections within the deadline.
The Court notes that the docket shows that at least two items mailed to Plaintiff
were returned by the United States Postal Service as undeliverable. (See Docs. 80, 81)
Pursuant to General Order 14-10, the Court discontinued mailing documents to Plaintiff at
the undeliverable address. As the R & R indicates (Doc. 83 at 3-5), a party has a duty to
inform the court, proactively, of any changes to his or her address. Fidelity Philadelphia
Tr. Co. v. Pioche Mines Consol., Inc. 587 F.2d 27, 29, (9th Cir. 1978). It is not the Court’s
duty to search for a party’s new mailing address. Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1441 (9th
Cir. 1988). This obligation applies with equal force to unrepresented prisoners.
. . . .
Case 2:23-cv-02402-MTL Document 84 Filed 02/17/26 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
In reviewing an R & R, the 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).
“[T]he district judge must review the magistrate judge's finding 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); see Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140,
149 (1985) (finding that the District Court need not conduct “any review at all . . . of any
issue that is not the subject of an objection”).
No objections having been received, the Court will accept and adopt the R & R in
its entirety.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 83) is accepted as
follows:
1. The reference to the Magistrate Judge is withdrawn.
2. Pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this action is
dismissed without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORERED that the Clerk of Court must enter judgment
accordingly and close this case.
Dated this 17th day of February, 2026.
Case 2:23-cv-02402-MTL Document 84 Filed 02/17/26 Page 2 of 2