Warden v. Russell et al

Filing 25

ORDERED granting 15 Motion to Remand to State Court and 17 Motion to Amend. Ordered Magistrate Judge's 24 Report and Recommendation is accepted and adopted. Signed by Judge James A Soto on 1/20/2016.(BAR)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Roy Warden, 10 11 12 No. 4: 15-CV-361-TUC-JAS Plaintiff, v. Phyllis Russell, individually and in her official capacity, et al., 13 ORDER Defendants. 14 15 Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation issued by United 16 States Magistrate Judge Rateau that recommends granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend 17 (Doc. 17) and Motion to Remand (Doc. 15). A review of the record reflects that the 18 parties have not filed any objections to the Report and Recommendation and the time to 19 20 21 22 23 24 file objections has expired. As such, the Court will not consider any objections or new evidence. The Court has reviewed the record and concludes that Magistrate Judge Rateau’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) (holding that portions of a report and recommendation to which objections have not been filed are 25 26 27 28 reviewed for clear error); Conley v. Crabtree, 14 F. Supp. 2d 1203, 1204 (D. Or. 1998). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: (1) Magistrate Judge Rateau’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 24) is accepted and adopted. 1 (2) Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend (Doc. 17) and Motion to Remand (Doc. 15) are 2 GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court is ordered to close the file in this case and notify the 3 Pima County Superior Court that the case has been remanded. 4 5 Dated this 20th day of January, 2016. 6 7 8 9 10 Honorable James A. Soto United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2-

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?