DeMillard et al v. Arizona, State of et al

Filing 25

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re: 19 Report and Recommendation and denying as moot 24 Motion to Remand to State Court. The Complaint (Doc. 1 ) is dismissed without prejudice and without leave to amend. The Clerk shall terminate this action. Signed by Senior Judge Stephen M McNamee on 7/19/21. (DXD)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Eric Levanter DeMillard, et al., Plaintiffs, 10 11 ORDER v. 12 No. CV-21-08079-PCT-DMF State of Arizona, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation filed by Magistrate Judge 16 Deborah M. Fine, on June 30, 2021. (Doc. 19.) Having reviewed it, the Court will 17 incorporate and adopt the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and dismiss 18 this action without prejudice. 19 STANDARD OF REVIEW 20 The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 21 recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(C); see Baxter v. 22 Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991). When a party files a timely objection to a 23 report and recommendation, the Court reviews those portions of the report and 24 recommendation that have been “properly objected to” de novo. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). A 25 proper objection requires specific written objections to the findings and recommendations 26 in the report and recommendation. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 27 1121 (9th Cir. 2003); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court need not conduct any review of 28 portions to which no specific objection has been made. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1 1121. 2 DISCUSSION 3 Plaintiff has not filed any formal objections to the Report and Recommendation. 4 However, on July 2, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Demand for Immediate Summary Legal 5 Judgment by the Two Federal Plaintiff Against the Ten Federal Defendants. (Doc. 20.) 6 The motion was subsequently stricken by Magistrate Judge Fine for failure to comply 7 with the Court’s previous order and for failure to comply with the applicable rules for 8 moving for summary judgment. (Doc. 21.) Plaintiff also filed a Notification of Homeless 9 Status on July 14, 2021, and a Motion to Remand to State Court on July 15, 2021. (Docs. 10 22, 24.) 11 As Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, in the interest of giving full consideration to 12 Plaintiff’s case, the Court has reviewed the Demand for Immediate Summary Legal 13 Judgment by the Two Federal Plaintiff Against the Ten Federal Defendants, the 14 Notification of Homeless Status, and the Motion to Remand to State Court for any 15 objections Plaintiff may have against the Report and Recommendation. (Docs. 20, 22, 16 24.) However, the Court finds the documents largely incomprehensible and without 17 reference to the Report and Recommendation or any other filing or action by this Court. 18 Thus, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to file any specific objections to the Report 19 and Recommendation and the Court will not conduct de novo review. 20 Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and no 21 specific objections having been made, the Court finds that the reasoning of the Magistrate 22 Judge is well founded and hereby incorporates and adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report 23 and Recommendation. 24 25 26 27 28 CONCLUSION Accordingly, for the reasons set forth, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. (Doc. 19.) IT IS FURTHER ORDER denying as moot Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand to -2- 1 State Court. (Doc. 24.) 2 3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing the Complaint (Doc. 1) without prejudice and without leave to amend. 4 5 6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to terminate this action. Dated this 19th day of July, 2021. 7 8 Honorable Stephen M. McNamee Senior United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 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?