Wade v. Penzone

— 1 — — 2 — — 3 — — 4 — — 5 — 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA — 8 — William Earl Wade, Jr., ) No. CV-20-00694-PHX-SPL ) — 9 — ) 10 Plaintiff, ) ORDER vs. ) ) — 11 — ) Paul Penzone, et al., ) — 12 — ) 13 Defendants. ) ) 14 ) 15 Plaintiff William Earl Wade, Jr. has filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to — 16 — 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1). The Honorable James F. Metcalf, United States Magistrate 17 Judge, issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 43), recommending the Court 18 dismiss this action for repeated failure to comply with Rule 16 orders of the Court. Plaintiff 19 has filed an objection to the R&R (Doc. 46) and Defendants have filed a response (Doc. 20 48). 21 A district judge “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 22 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b); see also Fed. R. Civ. 23 P. 72 (b)(3) (“The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; 24 receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.”). 25 When a party files a timely objection to an R&R, the district judge reviews de novo those 26 portions of the R&R that have been “properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). A 27 proper objection requires specific written objections to the findings and recommendations 28 in the R&R. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 , 1118–19 (9th Cir. 2003); 1| 28U.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 Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (discussing the inherent purpose of limited review 4) 1s judicial economy). Further, a party is not entitled as of right to de novo review of 5 | 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 7 | 615, 621-622 (9th Cir. 2000). 8 In the R&R, the Magistrate Judge recommends this action be dismissed for 9| Plaintiff's repeated failure to comply with Rule 16 orders of the Court (Doc. 43). Plaintiff 10 | argues his non-compliance derives from his limited legal knowledge and the Court’s failure 11 | to appoint counsel (Doc. 46). As previously noted, however, the Court provided Plaintiff with detailed instructions on preparing his Individual Case Management Report □□□□□□□□ 13 | (Doc. 23), he had the benefit of Defendants’ ICMR as an example, he never expressed any 14| specific confusion or issue with preparing the ICMR, and he demonstrated a capability to 15 | complete other complex tasks and communicate arguments (including filing complaints, 16 | completing service packets, and serving discovery) (Doc. 39). Thus, after conducting a de 17 | novo review of the motion and objections, the Court reaches the same conclusions reached by Judge Metcalf. Accordingly, the R&R will be adopted in full. 19 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Magistrate Judge James F. Metcalf’s Report 20 | and Recommendation (Doc. 43) is accepted and adopted by the Court. 21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Objections (Doc. 46) are overruled. 22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed without 23 | prejudice and the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment and terminate this action. 94 Dated this 13th day of September, 2023. — 25 — United States District kludge — 28 —