Bailey v. Arizona Board of Regents

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: August 25, 2025
• Docket: 4:23-cv-00557
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Keiron Bailey, No. CV-23-00557-TUC-AMM (LCK)

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Arizona Board of Regents, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 On May 15, 2025, Magistrate Judge Lynnette C. Kimmins issued a Report and 16 Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending this Court deny pro se Plaintiff Keiron 17 Bailey’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction to Prevent Unauthorized Filings by 18 Disqualified Defense Counsel (Doc. 37) and Motion for Preliminary Injunction to 19 Prevent Spoliation and Preserve Evidence (Doc. 38). (Doc. 65.) Judge Kimmins notified 20 the parties they had fourteen (14) days to file any written objections to the proposed 21 findings and recommendation. (Id. at 4.) Neither party filed an objection, and the time to 22 do so has now passed. 23 A district court is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is 24 not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); see also 28 25 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (“A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those 26 portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which 27 objection is made.”). “[T]he court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on 28 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 2|| modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations” of the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 4 The Court has reviewed Judge Kimmins’s R&R, the parties’ briefs, and the record. 5 || The Court finds no clear error and agrees with the findings and recommendation. 6 Accordingly, 7 IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED. (Doc. 65.) 9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction 10 || to Prevent Unauthorized Filings by Disqualified Defense Counsel is DENIED. (Doc. 37.) 11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction 12 || to Prevent Spoliation and Preserve Evidence is DENIED. (Doc. 38.) 13 Dated this 25th day of August, 2025. 14 15 Daw 2. uct 16 ~ Honorable Angela M. Martinez 7 United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_2-