Markham v. Pima, County of et al

Filing 45

ORDERED Magistrate Judge Rateau's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 38 ) is accepted and adopted in its entirety. Defendants' motion to dismiss (Doc. 23 ) is granted in part and denied in part as discussed in the Report and Recommendation. The motion for an extension of time (Doc. 42 ) is granted. This case is hereby referred back to Magistrate Judge Rateau for all pretrial proceedings and report and recommendation. Signed by Judge James A Soto on 12/1/2016. (KEP)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Gerald Markham,
Plaintiff,

10
11

vs.

12
Pima County, et al.
13
Defendants.
14

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CV 16-134-TUC-JAS (JR)
ORDER

15
16

Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation issued by Magistrate Judge

17

Rateau. In the Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Rateau recommends granting

18

in part and denying in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss. As the Court finds that the Report

19

and Recommendation appropriately resolved the motion, both Defendants’ and Plaintiff’s

20

objections are denied.1

21

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

22

(1) Magistrate Judge Rateau’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 38) is accepted and

23

adopted in its entirety.

24

(2) Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 23) is granted in part and denied in part as

25
26
27
28

1

The Court reviews de novo the objected-to portions of the Report and Recommendation.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The Court reviews for clear error the unobjected-to
portions of the Report and Recommendation. See Johnson v. Zema Systems Corp., 170 F.3d 734,
739 (7th Cir. 1999); see also Conley v. Crabtree, 14 F. Supp. 2d 1203, 1204 (D. Or. 1998).

1

discussed in the Report and Recommendation.

2

(3) The motion for an extension of time (Doc. 42) is granted

3

(4) This case is hereby referred back to Magistrate Judge Rateau for all pretrial

4

proceedings and report and recommendation in accordance with the provisions of 28

5

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), Fed.R.Civ.P. 72, and LRCiv 72.1, 72.2, and 72.3 of the Rules of

6

Practice of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona.

7
8

DATED this 1st day of December, 2016.

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-