Berger v. Shopa

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 8 9 Tony A Berger, No. CV-24-00262-TUC-RCC (EJM) 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 Mike Shopa, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 On December 31, 2024, Magistrate Judge Eric J. Markovich issued a Report and 16 Recommendation (“R&R”) in which he recommended the Court deny Defendants 17 Cochise County and Judge Trevor Ward’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Improper Sur- 18 Reply (Doc. 33), grant Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 25), and dismiss Plaintiff’s 19 Complaint with leave to amend. (Doc. 36.) The R&R notified the parties they had 20 fourteen (14) days from the date of the R&R to file any objections. The time has passed, 21 and no objections have been filed. 22 The standard of review of a magistrate judge’s R&R is dependent upon whether a 23 party objects: where there is no objection to a magistrate’s factual or legal 24 determinations, the district court need not review the decision “under a de novo or any 25 other standard.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). However, when a party 26 objects, the district court must “determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s 27 disposition that has been properly objected to. The district judge may accept, reject, or 28 modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the || magistrate judge with instructions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2|| 636(b)(1). Moreover, “while the statute does not require the judge to review an issue de || novo if no objections are filed, it does not preclude further review by the district judge, sua sponte or at the request of a party, under a de novo or any other standard.” Thomas, 5|| 474 U.S. at 154. 6 The Court has reviewed the Complaint (Doc. 1), Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss 7\| (Doc. 25), Plaintiff's responses (Doc. 29, 32), Defendants’ reply (Doc. 31), Defendants’ 8 || Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Improper Sur-Reply (Doc. 33), Plaintiff’s response (Doc. 34), 9|| Defendants’ reply (Doc. 35), and the R&R (Doc. 36). The Court finds the R&R well- 10 || reasoned and agrees with Judge Markovich’s conclusions. ll Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: 1) Magistrate Judge Markovich’s Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED. (Doc. 36.) 14 2) Defendants Cochise County and Judge Trevor Ward’s Motion to Strike □□□□□□□□□□ 1s Improper Sur-Reply is DENIED. (Doc. 33.) 16 3) Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. (Doc. 25.) The case is 7 DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Clerk of Court shall docket 13 accordingly and close the case file in this matter.

19 Dated this 23rd day of January, 2025.

20 21 4] , 22 HK La 23 Honorable Raner C. Collins 74 senior United States District Judge 25 26 27 28

_2-