Gordon v. Ryan et al
Filing
17
ORDER re 16 Report and Recommendation - Consistent with the foregoing authority, and no objections having been filed by any party thereto, the court has not engaged in a de novo review; and instead, the court having "satisf[ied] itself that t here is no clear error on the face of the record[,]" hereby ACCEPTS, ADOPTS AND INCORPORATES BY REFERENCE in its entirety, as if fully set forth herein, the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 16). See FED.R.CIV.P. 72, Advisory Committee Notes, 1983 Addition. Signed by Senior Judge Robert C Broomfield on 7/2/2012. (KMG)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
9
10
11
12
Dante Shon Gordon,
13
14
15
16
Plaintiff,
vs.
Charles L. Ryan, et al.
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. CIV 11-8153-PHX-RCB(JFM)
O R D E R
17
18
Presently before the court is a Report and Recommendation
19
(“R & R”) filed with this court by the Honorable James F.
20
Metcalf, United States Magistrate Judge), wherein he makes
21
four recommendations with respect to plaintiff’s First
22
Amended Complaint (“FAC”).
23
§ 1915(e), he recommends dismissal of the State of Arizona as
24
a defendant, as well as dismissal of plaintiff’s claims based
25
upon the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United
26
States Constitution.
27
the Magistrate Judge recommends staying service of
28
plaintiff’s original complaint.
First, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
R & R (Doc. 16) at 7:13-15.
Id. at 7:16-17.
Second,
Third, the
Magistrate Judge recommends “that Defendant Director Ryan be
1
ordered to respond to Count I of the [FAC], and that
2
Defendants Deputy Warden Polland and Complex Administrator
3
Elliott be ordered to respond to Count II of the [FAC].”
4
at 7:18-21.
5
Defendants Director Ryan, Deputy Warden Polland, and Complex
6
Administrator Elliott proceed” as detailed in that R & R.
7
See id. at 7:22-9:3.
8
9
Id.
Fourth, he recommends “that service on
On May 23, 2012, this R & R was filed and served upon the
parties. The R & R explicitly advised the parties that,
10
pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 72, they “shall have fourteen (14)
11
days from the date of service of a copy of this
12
recommendation within which to file specific written
13
objections with the Court.”
14
parties have filed objections to that R & R, and the fourteen
15
day time frame for so doing has passed.1
16
Id. at 9:9-11.
None of the
When reviewing an R & R issued by a Magistrate Judge,
17
this court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in
18
part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate
19
judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). “Of course, de novo review of
20
a R & R is only required when an objection is made to the
21
R & R[.]”
22
Cir. 2005) (citing United States v. Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d
23
1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc)). That is because
24
“[n]either the Constitution nor the [Federal Magistrates Act]
25
requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and
Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n. 13 (9th
26
1
27
28
Calculating the time in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 6, including
allowing three extra days for service in accordance with subsection (d) of
that Rule, means that the parties had until June 11, 2012 by which to
timely file any objections.
-2-
1
recommendations that the parties themselves accept as
2
correct.” Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121 (citations omitted).
3
Indeed, construing the Federal Magistrates Act, the Supreme
4
Court has found that that “statute does not on its face
5
require any review at all, by either the district court or
6
the court of appeals, of any issue that is not the subject of
7
an objection.”
8
466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985) (emphasis added).
9
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149, 106 S.Ct.
Consistent with the foregoing authority, and no
10
objections having been filed by any party thereto, the court
11
has not engaged in a de novo review; and instead, the court
12
having “satisf[ied] itself that there is no clear error on
13
the face of the record[,]” hereby ACCEPTS, ADOPTS AND
14
INCORPORATES BY REFERENCE in its entirety, as if fully set
15
forth herein, the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
16
Recommendation (Doc. 16).
17
Committee Notes, 1983 Addition.
18
See FED.R.CIV.P. 72, Advisory
DATED this 2nd day of July, 2012.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Copies to counsel of record and plaintiff pro se
27
28
-3-
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?