Treestump Woodcraft LLC et al v. South Tucson, City of et al
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)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Treestump Woodcraft LLC, et al.,
South Tucson, City of, et al.,
On January 26, 2016, Magistrate Judge Bruce G. Macdonald issued a Report and
Recommendation (Doc. 102) recommending that this Court grant Defendants’ Motions
for Summary Judgment (Docs. 72, 74), deny Defendants Yolanda Loya, Joseph Mason,
and Fernando Loya’s request for attorneys’ fees, and remand this case to the Pima
County Superior Court. No objections to the Report and Recommendation were filed.
A district judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions” of a
magistrate judge’s “report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which
objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The advisory committee’s notes to Rule
72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure state that, “[w]hen no timely objection is
filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record
in order to accept the recommendation” of a magistrate judge. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)
advisory committee’s note to 1983 addition. See also Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170
F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999) (“If no objection or only partial objection is made, the
district court judge reviews those unobjected portions for clear error.”); Prior v. Ryan,
CV 10-225-TUC-RCC, 2012 WL 1344286, at *1 (D. Ariz. Apr. 18, 2012) (reviewing for
clear error unobjected-to portions of Report and Recommendation).
The Court has reviewed Judge Macdonald’s Report and Recommendation, the
parties’ briefs, and the record. The Court finds no error in Judge Macdonald’s Report
and Recommendation. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED:
1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 102) is accepted and adopted in
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 #
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.
Honorable Rosemary Márquez
United States District Judge
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?