Craddock v. Vasquez

Filing 136

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 109 . Dismissing the following motions of plaintiff: 81 Motion to Amend/Correct, 60 Motion to Amend/Correct, 88 Motion for Leave to File. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 9/23/08. (DMT, )

Download PDF
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 vs. Sheriff Chris Vasquez, Defendant. Forrest Juan Craddock, Plaintiff, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. cv-07-00406-PHX-ROS ORDER IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA On July 15th, 2008, Magistrate Judge Mark E. Aspey issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") recommending that Plaintiff's Motions at Docket No. 60, No. 81, and No.88 be denied. Plaintiff failed to file timely objections. 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). 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, 1126 (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.'"). District courts are not required to conduct "any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject 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 of an objection." Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). No objection having been made, the Court will adopt the R&R in full. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 109) is ADOPTED. Plaintiff's Motions are DISMISSED. DATED this 23rd day of September, 2008. -2-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?