Thomas v. Colvin

Filing 15

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)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Amy Ann Thomas,

No. CV-15-00156-TUC-RCC
Plaintiff,

10
11

v.

12

ORDER

Carolyn W. Colvin,

13

Defendant.

14
15

Pending before the court is Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis

16

(Doc. 2) and Magistrate Judge Leslie A. Bowman’s Report and Recommendation (R &

17

R) (Doc. 10). The Court accepts and adopts Judge Bowman’s R & R (Doc. 10) as

18

findings of fact and conclusions of law of this Court.

19

The duties of the district court in connection with a R & R are set forth in Rule 72

20

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district court

21

may “accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or

22

return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); 28

23

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where the parties object to an R & R, “[a] judge of the [district] court

24

shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the [R & R] to which objection is

25

made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). When

26

no objection is filed, the district court need not review the R & R de novo. Wang v.

27

Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n. 13 (9th Cir.2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328

28

F.3d 1114, 1121-22 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Therefore to the extent that no objection

1

has been made, arguments to the contrary have been waived. McCall v. Andrus, 628 F.2d

2

1185, 1187 (9th Cir. 1980) (failure to object to Magistrate's report waives right to do so

3

on appeal); see also, Advisory Committee Notes to Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 (citing Campbell v.

4

United States Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974) (when no timely objection is

5

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

6

in order to accept the recommendation).

7

Here, the parties have not objected to the R & R (Doc. 10). This Court considers

8

Judge Bowman’s R & R to be thorough and well-reasoned. After review of the record,

9

the Court will adopt the R & R of Magistrate Judge Bowman (Doc. 10). Accordingly,

10
11

IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Leslie A. Bowman’s Report and
Recommendation (Doc. 10) is accepted and adopted.

12

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma

13

pauperis (Doc. 2) is denied. Within 30 days of the date this Order is filed, Plaintiff must

14

pay the filing fee. If Plaintiff fails to pay the filing fee within 30 days, the Clerk of the

15

Court must enter judgment of dismissal of this action without prejudice and without

16

further notice to Plaintiff.

17

This matter will remain referred to Judge Bowman for the remaining pretrial

18

proceedings in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P.

19

72, and LRCiv 72.1, and 72.2 of the Rules of Practice of the United States District Court

20

for the District of Arizona.

21

Dated this 24th day of June, 2015.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-2-