Treestump Woodcraft LLC et al v. South Tucson, City of et al

Filing 103

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: IT IS ORDERED the 102 Report and Recommendation is accepted and adopted in full. The 72 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant City of South Tucson and its officers is GRANTED. The 74 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Defendants Yolanda Loya, Joseph Mason, and Fernando Loya is GRANTED. Defendants Yolanda Loya, Joseph Mason, and Fernando Loya's request for attorneys' fees is DENIED. This case is remanded to the Pima County Superior Court (Cause #C20144790). The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a certified copy of this Order to the Clerk of the Pima County Superior Court. Signed by Judge Rosemary Marquez on 2/16/16.(BAC)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Treestump Woodcraft LLC, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

10
11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-14-02386-TUC-RM

South Tucson, City of, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15

On January 26, 2016, Magistrate Judge Bruce G. Macdonald issued a Report and

16

Recommendation (Doc. 102) recommending that this Court grant Defendants’ Motions

17

for Summary Judgment (Docs. 72, 74), deny Defendants Yolanda Loya, Joseph Mason,

18

and Fernando Loya’s request for attorneys’ fees, and remand this case to the Pima

19

County Superior Court. No objections to the Report and Recommendation were filed.

20

A district judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions” of a

21

magistrate judge’s “report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which

22

objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The advisory committee’s notes to Rule

23

72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure state that, “[w]hen no timely objection is

24

filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record

25

in order to accept the recommendation” of a magistrate judge. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)

26

advisory committee’s note to 1983 addition. See also Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170

27

F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999) (“If no objection or only partial objection is made, the

28

district court judge reviews those unobjected portions for clear error.”); Prior v. Ryan,

1

CV 10-225-TUC-RCC, 2012 WL 1344286, at *1 (D. Ariz. Apr. 18, 2012) (reviewing for

2

clear error unobjected-to portions of Report and Recommendation).

3

The Court has reviewed Judge Macdonald’s Report and Recommendation, the

4

parties’ briefs, and the record. The Court finds no error in Judge Macdonald’s Report

5

and Recommendation. Accordingly,

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

IT IS ORDERED:
1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 102) is accepted and adopted in
full.
2. The Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 72) filed by Defendant City of
South Tucson and its officers is granted.
3. The Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 74) filed by Defendants
Yolanda Loya, Joseph Mason, and Fernando Loya is granted.
4. Defendants Yolanda Loya, Joseph Mason, and Fernando Loya’s request for
attorneys’ fees is denied.
5. This case is remanded to the Pima County Superior Court (Cause #
C20144790).
6. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a certified copy of this Order to the
Clerk of the Pima County Superior Court.
Dated this 16th day of February, 2016.

20
21
22

Honorable Rosemary Márquez
United States District Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28

-2-