Acosta v. Gallego

D. Arizona

Acosta v. Gallego

DecidedJune 10, 2021

Docket2:20-cv-01823

StatusUnknown

This text of Acosta v. Gallego (Acosta v. Gallego) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Acosta v. Gallego, (D. Ariz. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Acosta v. Gallego, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/acosta-v-gallego-azd-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack