Brown v. Wormuth

Opinion

Nichol L Brown, No. CV-21-00477-TUC-RM (MSA)

Plaintiff, ORDER

v.

Christine E Wormuth,

Defendant. On July 26, 2024, Magistrate Judge Maria S. Aguilera issued a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 108), recommending that this Court grant Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 87). No objections to the Report and Recommendation were filed. A district judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions” of a magistrate judge’s “report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The advisory committee’s notes to Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure state that, “[w]hen no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation” of a magistrate judge. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note to 1983 addition. See also Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999) (“If no objection or only partial objection is made, the district court judge reviews those unobjected portions for clear error.”); Prior v. Ryan, CV 10-225-TUC-RCC, 2012 WL 1344286, at *1 (D. Ariz. Apr. 18, 2012) (reviewing for 1 clear error unobjected-to portions of Report and Recommendation). The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Aguilera’s Report and Recommendation, the parties’ briefs, and the record. The Court finds no clear error in Magistrate Judge Aguilera’s Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 108) is accepted and adopted in full. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 87) is granted. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendant and close this case. Dated this 30th day of September, 2024.

DH Wt 2 □□ Honorable Rostehary Mafquez United States District □□□□□

_2-