Allonzo Trier v. Glen E Wright, II, et al.

D. Arizona

Allonzo Trier v. Glen E Wright, II, et al.

District Court, D. Arizona·Decided July 30, 2026·No. 4:25-cv-00055·Unknown

Opinion

Allonzo Trier, No. CV-25-00055-TUC-AMM (MSA)

Plaintiff, ORDER

v.

Glen E Wright, II, et al.,

Defendants. On July 15, 2026, Magistrate Judge Maria S. Aguilera issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending this Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion to Preclude Alleged Expert Testimony of Loftin and Deeba. (Doc. 57.) Judge Aguilera notified the parties they had fourteen (14) days to file any written objections to the proposed findings and recommendation. (Id. at 8.) Neither party filed an objection, and the time to do so has now passed. A district court is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (“A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.”). “[T]he court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee Notes 1983 Addition. A district judge may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations” of the magistrate judge. 28 L}| U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court has reviewed Judge Aguilera’s R&R, the parties’ briefs, and the record. The Court finds no clear error and agrees with the findings and recommendation. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED. (Doc. 57.) IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Preclude Alleged Expert Testimony of Loftin and Deeba is DENIED. (Doc. 44.) IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter remains referred to Magistrate Judge Aguilera for all pretrial proceedings and a report and recommendation in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, and 72.2 of the Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. Dated this 30th day of July, 2026. “Dry Lo be. WATE Honorable Angela M. Martinez United States District Judge

-2-

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

Allonzo Trier, No. CV-25-00055-TUC-AMM (MSA)

Plaintiff, ORDER

v.

Glen E Wright, II, et al.,

Defendants. On July 15, 2026, Magistrate Judge Maria S. Aguilera issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending this Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion to Preclude Alleged Expert Testimony of Loftin and Deeba. (Doc. 57.) Judge Aguilera notified the parties they had fourteen (14) days to file any written objections to the proposed findings and recommendation. (Id. at 8.) Neither party filed an objection, and the time to do so has now passed. A district court is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (“A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.”). “[T]he court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee Notes 1983 Addition. A district judge may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations” of the magistrate judge. 28 L}| U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court has reviewed Judge Aguilera’s R&R, the parties’ briefs, and the record. The Court finds no clear error and agrees with the findings and recommendation. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED. (Doc. 57.) IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Preclude Alleged Expert Testimony of Loftin and Deeba is DENIED. (Doc. 44.) IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter remains referred to Magistrate Judge Aguilera for all pretrial proceedings and a report and recommendation in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, and 72.2 of the Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. Dated this 30th day of July, 2026. “Dry Lo be. WATE Honorable Angela M. Martinez United States District Judge

-2-

Allonzo Trier v. Glen E Wright, II, et al., (D. Ariz. 2026).

Pincite

Allonzo Trier v. Glen E Wright, II, et al. (Allonzo Trier v. Glen E Wright, II, et al.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related