Wells v. Kearney et al

Filing 103

ORDER granting 26 , 27 , 29 , 30 , 32 Motions to Dismiss Case as to specified dft's w/prejudice; granting 31 Motion to Dismiss Party as to specified dft's w/ prejudice; Clk to enter judgment as to dismissed dft's. Denying as mo ot 35 Motion for More Definite Statement; granting 41 & 66 Motions for Extension of Time; denying 42 & 71 Motions to Amend/Correct Complaint; denying 43 Motion for Default Judgment; adopting 87 Report & Recommendations. Pla is to show c ause as to why Dft Schwartz's motion for Rule 11 sanctions should not be granted by 8/31/09. Case is referred back to Magistrate Judge Jacqueline J. Marshall for all pretrial proceedings & report & recommendation, all future filings shall be designated CV 07-309-TUC-FRZ-JJM. Signed by Judge Frank R Zapata on 8/18/09.(JEMB, )

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 Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation issued by United States Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Marshall whereby she recommends granting several motions to dismiss and addresses several other motions. The Report and Recommendation was issued on June 29, 2009. The parties have not filed any objections to the Report and Recommendation, the time for filing objections expired, and the Court will not consider any untimely objections. The Court has reviewed the entire record and concludes that Magistrate Judge Marshall's recommendations are not clearly erroneous. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72; Johnson v. Zema Systems Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999); Conley v. Crabtree, 14 F. Supp. 2d 1203, 1204 (D. Or. 1998). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: (1) United States Magistrate Judge Marshall's Report and Recommendation (Doc. #87) is ACCEPTED AND ADOPTED. (2) The motions to dismiss filed by the defendants (Doc. #'s 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32) are granted; these defendants are dismissed with prejudice and the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly. vs. Hon. Jan E. Kearney, et al., Defendants. Cheryl Wells, Plaintiff, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CV 07-309-TUC-FRZ 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

(3)Defendant Morgan Stanley and Steve Fishman's motion for summary disposition (Doc. #35) of their motion to dismiss is denied as moot. (4) Plaintiff is ordered to show cause as to why Defendant Phillip Schwartz's motion for Rule 11 sanctions should not be granted; Plaintiff shall show cause by filing a brief addressing the sanctions issue no later than August 31, 2009. (5) Plaintiff's motions for extension of time (Doc. #'s 41, 66) to file her responses to the motions to dismiss are granted. (6) Plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended complaint (Doc. #42) and motion for leave to file a second amended complaint (Doc. #71) are denied. (7) Plaintiff's motion for default (Doc. #43) against Cia Wells and Alan Belauskas is denied. (8) As pretrial proceedings still remain in this case, this case is hereby referred back to Magistrate Judge Jacqueline J. Marshall for all pretrial proceedings and report and recommendation in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), Fed.R.Civ.P. 72, and LRCiv 72.1, 72.2, and 72.3 of Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. All future filings in this case shall be designated: CV 07-309-TUC-FRZ (JJM)

DATED this 18th day of August, 2009.

-2-