Thomas v. Colvin
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Leslie A. Bowman's 10 Report and Recommendation is accepted and adopted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's 2 application to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED. Within 30 days of the date this Order is filed, Plaintiff must pay the filing fee. Failure to comply will result in a judgment of dismissal of this action without prejudice and without further notice to Plaintiff. This matter will remain referred to Judge Bowman for the remaining pretrial proceedings. Signed by Chief Judge Raner C Collins on 6/24/15. (BAC)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Amy Ann Thomas,
Carolyn W. Colvin,
Pending before the court is Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis
(Doc. 2) and Magistrate Judge Leslie A. Bowman’s Report and Recommendation (R &
R) (Doc. 10). The Court accepts and adopts Judge Bowman’s R & R (Doc. 10) as
findings of fact and conclusions of law of this Court.
The duties of the district court in connection with a R & R are set forth in Rule 72
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district court
may “accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or
return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where the parties object to an R & R, “[a] judge of the [district] court
shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the [R & R] to which objection is
made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). When
no objection is filed, the district court need not review the R & R de novo. Wang v.
Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n. 13 (9th Cir.2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328
F.3d 1114, 1121-22 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Therefore to the extent that no objection
has been made, arguments to the contrary have been waived. McCall v. Andrus, 628 F.2d
1185, 1187 (9th Cir. 1980) (failure to object to Magistrate's report waives right to do so
on appeal); see also, Advisory Committee Notes to Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 (citing Campbell v.
United States Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974) (when 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).
Here, the parties have not objected to the R & R (Doc. 10). This Court considers
Judge Bowman’s R & R to be thorough and well-reasoned. After review of the record,
the Court will adopt the R & R of Magistrate Judge Bowman (Doc. 10). Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Leslie A. Bowman’s Report and
Recommendation (Doc. 10) is accepted and adopted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma
pauperis (Doc. 2) is denied. Within 30 days of the date this Order is filed, Plaintiff must
pay the filing fee. If Plaintiff fails to pay the filing fee within 30 days, the Clerk of the
Court must enter judgment of dismissal of this action without prejudice and without
further notice to Plaintiff.
This matter will remain referred to Judge Bowman for the remaining pretrial
proceedings in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P.
72, and LRCiv 72.1, and 72.2 of the Rules of Practice of the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona.
Dated this 24th day of June, 2015.
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?