The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hayes, Judge
The matters before the Court are (1) the Amended Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 7); and (2) the review of the Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 10) filed on July 15, 2008 by Magistrate Judge Ruben B. Brooks.
On March 28, 2007, Plaintiff John Nobles, a federal prisoner, initiated this action by filing a Complaint in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego (Doc. # 1). On July 6, 2007, Defendants removed the Complaint to federal court. The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff is permanently disabled and disfigured because an unnamed United States Customs agent denied him medical care while he was in custody.
On February 26, 2008, Defendants filed the Amended Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff did not file an opposition to the Amended Motion to Dismiss.
On July 15, 2008, United States Magistrate Judge Ruben B. Brooks issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") recommending that this Court grant the Amended Motion to Dismiss and dismiss this action without prejudice. Plaintiff has not filed any objections to the R&R.*fn1
The duties of the district court in connection with a Report and Recommendation of a Magistrate Judge are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When the parties object to a Report and Recommendation, "[a] judge of the [district] court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the [Report and Recommendation] to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). When no objections are filed, the district court need not review the Report and Recommendation de novo. Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n. 13 (9th Cir. 2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121-22 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). A district court may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Neither party filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. The Court has reviewed all aspects of the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge filed on July 15, 2008, and adopts all portions of the R&R. The R&R correctly concluded that Plaintiff failed, without good cause, to effectuate proper service on Defendants. The R&R also correctly concluded that the circumstances required for an extension of time are absent.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that all portions of the Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 10) are ADOPTED. The Amended Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 7) is GRANTED. The above-captioned action is DISMISSED without prejudice.
WILLIAM Q. HAYES United States ...