Ortega v. Schriro et al

Filing 30

ORDER adopting the Report and Recommendation 26 of the Magistrate Judge as the order of this Court. FURTHER ORDERED as follows: (1) Counts One, Two and Four and Defendant Schriro are dismissed without prejudice. (2) Defendant Hewitt is required to answer Counts Three and Five. (3) Defendants Kraicinski, Sambora and Owens are required to answer Count Five; (4) Defendant Durrenburg is required to answer Counts Seven and Eight.. Signed by Judge Mary H Murguia on 9/30/08. (KMG, )

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 Plaintiff, Ernie Pete Ortega, filed his pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 [doc. 1]. On April 15, 2008, the Court granted Plaintiff's second Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis [doc. 13]. On that same date, the Court screened Plaintiff's Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(a), ordered Defendant Hewitt to answer Count Two of the Plaintiff's original Complaint, and dismissed the remaining claims and Defendants without prejudice. The Magistrate Judge filed her Report and Recommendation on August 22, 2008 recommending that (1) Counts One, Two and Four and Defendant Schriro be dismissed without prejudice; (2) Defendant Hewitt be required to answer Counts Three and Five; (3) Defendants Kraicinski, Sambora and Owens be required to answer Count Five; (4) Defendant Durrenburg be required to answer Counts Seven and Eight. In her Report and Recommendation the Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had 10 days from the date of service of a copy of the Report and Recommendation within vs. Dora Schriro, et al., Defendants. Ernie Pete Ortega, Plaintiff, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CV 07-2451-PHX-MHM(JCG) ORDER IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

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

which to file specific written objections with the Court. The time to file such objections has long since expired and no objections to the Report and Recommendation have been filed. Failure to timely file objections to any factual or legal determination of the Magistrate Judge may be considered a waiver of a party's right to de novo consideration of the issues. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). After a complete and independent review of the issues presented, the Court finds itself in agreement with the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. IT IS ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as the order of this Court [Doc. 26]. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED as follows: (1) Counts One, Two and Four and Defendant Schriro are dismissed without prejudice. (2) Defendant Hewitt is required to answer Counts Three and Five. (3) Defendants Kraicinski, Sambora and Owens are required to answer Count Five; (4) Defendant Durrenburg is required to answer Counts Seven and Eight. DATED this 30th day of September, 2008.

-2-