Markham v. Pima, County of et al

Filing 91

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 79 . Defendants' motion to dismiss (Doc. 55) is granted in part and denied in part as discussed in the Report and Recommendation. 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 10/13/17. (KAH)

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 (Doc. 55) the First Amended

19

Complaint. As the Court finds that the Report and Recommendation appropriately resolved

20

the motion, both Defendants’ and Plaintiff’s objections are denied.1

21
22

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
(1) Magistrate Judge Rateau’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 79) is accepted and

23
24
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

adopted.2

2

(2) Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 55) is granted in part and denied in part as

3

discussed in the Report and Recommendation.

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8
9

DATED this 13th day of October, 2017.

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

27
28

The Court notes that Defendants’ objections correctly point out a typo on page 11,
line 6, of the Report and Recommendation. The name “Dixon” is hereby changed to
“Jansen” to correct the typo.
-2-