Barquera 310548 v. Rogers

D. Arizona

Barquera 310548 v. Rogers

DecidedJune 25, 2020

Docket2:19-cv-05451

StatusUnknown

This text of Barquera 310548 v. Rogers (Barquera 310548 v. Rogers) 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

Barquera 310548 v. Rogers, (D. Ariz. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

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

9 Mark Anthony Barquera, No. CV-19-05451-PHX-DLR (MTM)

10 Petitioner, ORDER

11 v.

12 Samuel Rogers, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 16 Before the Court are Petitioner’s motion to stay and Magistrate Judge Michael 17 Morrissey’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”). (Docs. 14, 17.) The R&R 18 recommends that the Court deny the motion. The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that 19 they had fourteen days to file objections to the R&R and that failure to file timely objections 20 could be considered a waiver of the right to obtain review of the R&R. See United States 21 v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Petitioner did not file objections, 22 which relieves the Court of its obligation to review the R&R. See Id.; Thomas v. Arn, 474 23 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (“[Section 636(b)(1)] does not . . . require any review at all . . . of any 24 issue that is not the subject of an objection.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge 25 must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been 26 properly objected to.”). The Court has nonetheless reviewed the R&R and finds that it is 27 well-taken. 28 IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s R&R (Doc. 17) is ACCEPTED and 1 || Petitioner’s motion to stay (Doc. 14) is DENIED. Respondents’ motion for an extension 2|| of time to respond to Petitioner’s motion to stay (Doc. 16) is DENIED as moot. 3 Dated this 25th day of June, 2020. 4 5 : Las Ue 7 _- {UO 8 States Dictric Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_2-

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

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

9 Mark Anthony Barquera, No. CV-19-05451-PHX-DLR (MTM)

10 Petitioner, ORDER

11 v.

12 Samuel Rogers, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 16 Before the Court are Petitioner’s motion to stay and Magistrate Judge Michael 17 Morrissey’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”). (Docs. 14, 17.) The R&R 18 recommends that the Court deny the motion. The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that 19 they had fourteen days to file objections to the R&R and that failure to file timely objections 20 could be considered a waiver of the right to obtain review of the R&R. See United States 21 v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Petitioner did not file objections, 22 which relieves the Court of its obligation to review the R&R. See Id.; Thomas v. Arn, 474 23 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (“[Section 636(b)(1)] does not . . . require any review at all . . . of any 24 issue that is not the subject of an objection.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge 25 must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been 26 properly objected to.”). The Court has nonetheless reviewed the R&R and finds that it is 27 well-taken. 28 IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s R&R (Doc. 17) is ACCEPTED and 1 || Petitioner’s motion to stay (Doc. 14) is DENIED. Respondents’ motion for an extension 2|| of time to respond to Petitioner’s motion to stay (Doc. 16) is DENIED as moot. 3 Dated this 25th day of June, 2020. 4 5 : Las Ue 7 _- {UO 8 States Dictric Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Barquera 310548 v. Rogers, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barquera-310548-v-rogers-azd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack