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)
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?