Acosta v. Gallego

Opinion

2 3 4 5 8 9 Mark Anthony Acosta, No. CV-20-01823-PHX-SMB (CDB) 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 Vv. Unknown Gallego, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 Plaintiff filed a motion (Doc. 33), which was construed as a motion seeking leave toamend his complaint. United States Magistrate Judge Camille Bibles has issued a report and recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the motion be denied. (Doc. 41). The 18 Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had fourteen days to file objections to the □□ R&R. (R&R at 4-5) (citing Rule 72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure) No objection has 20 been filed, which relieves the Court of its obligation to review the R&R. See 28 U.S.C. § 91 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); United □□ States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Nevertheless, the Court has 93 reviewed the pleadings and agrees with the analysis of Magistrate Judge Bibles. The Court 94 will accept and adopt the R&R. 25 IT IS ORDERED Plaintiff's motion (Doc. 33) is construed as a motion for leave 26 to amend his complaint and is DENIED. Dated this 10th day of June, 2021. 28 —— . □□ s > 3 fonorable Susan M, Brnovich

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28