Davis v. Penzone et al

Filing 122

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: IT IS ORDERED that Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 117 ) is accepted and Plaintiff's Motion for Leave for Plaintiff's Supplemental Pleadings (Doc. 107 ) is denied. See document for complete details. Signed by Judge Susan M Brnovich on 10/11/2019. (RMV)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

John Leo Davis,
Plaintiff,

10
11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-17-01946-PHX-SMB (CDB)

Unknown Murphy, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15

Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of

16

Magistrate Judge Camille Bibles (Doc. 117) regarding Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave for

17

Plaintiff’s Supplemental Pleading. (Doc. 107). The R&R recommends that the Motion be

18

denied. The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had fourteen days to file

19

objections to the R&R. (R&R at 15) (citing Rule 72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure)

20

Petitioner filed an objection on September 18, 2019 (Doc. 121).

21

The Court has considered the objections and reviewed the Report and

22

Recommendation de novo. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that

23

the court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and

24

Recommendation to which specific objections are made). The Court agrees with the

25

Magistrate Judge’s determinations, accepts the recommended decision within the meaning

26

of Rule 72(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., and overrules Plaintiff’s objection. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)

27

(stating that the district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the

28

findings or recommendations made by the magistrate”).

1

Specifically, Plaintiff feels like he has been misdirected by previous rulings. He

2

says that he filed a new Complaint in CV-19-01839-PHX-SMB(CDB). Upon screening of

3

that Complaint, the Court directed Plaintiff to seek to add those claims to this case and CV-

4

19-01839 was dismissed. The current motion is Plaintiff’s effort to do as he was told.

5

However, Plaintiff’s Complaint was dismissed in the other case because the complaint

6

exceeded the 15page limit and included 106 pages of exhibits. The Court did not rule on

7

the substance of the claims. Now that Plaintiff has sought to add the claims in this case,

8

the Court considered the merits of the claim and determined that they are futile and should

9

not be allowed to proceed.

10

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Report and Recommendation of the

11

Magistrate Judge (Doc. 117) is accepted and Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave for Plaintiff’s

12

Supplemental Pleadings (Doc. 107) is denied.

13

Dated this 11th day of October, 2019.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-2-