Brown v. Alexander

Opinion

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

9 Justin Matthew Brown, No. CV-19-05048-PHX-JAT (CDB)

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Unknown Alexander, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s motion for leave to amend the complaint. 16 (Doc. 13). Magistrate Judge Bibles issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) 17 recommending that the motion to amend be denied. (Doc. 19). Specifically, Judge Bibles 18 found that Plaintiff sought “leave to amend his complaint solely for the purpose of seeking 19 an increase in the amount of punitive damages sought and . . . failed to file a proposed 20 amended complaint on the requisite form and in the requisite manner.” (Id. at 3). Neither 21 party has filed objections to the R&R. 22 This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 23 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). “[T]he district 24 judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if 25 objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 26 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 27 2003) (“Following Reyna-Tapia, this Court concludes that de novo review of factual and 28 legal issues is required if objections are made, ‘but not otherwise.’”) (emphasis omitted). 1 Because there are no objections, the Court will accept the R&R. Accordingly, 2 IT IS ORDERED that the R&R (Doc. 19) is ACCEPTED. 3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to amend the complaint (Doc. 13) is DENIED. 5 Dated this 5th day of May, 2020. 6 7 ' James A. Teilborg 9 Senior United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_2-