Caldwell-Parker v. Surprise Police Department

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: January 6, 2022
• Docket: 2:21-cv-01088
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

9 Jabril Caldwell-Parker, No. CV-21-01088-PHX-DWL (JZB)

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Surprise Police Department, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 On December 15, 2021, Magistrate Judge Boyle issued a report and 16 recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that “Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant 17 Trinitee Sapp be DISMISSED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f)(3).” (Doc. 18 45 at 8-9.) The R&R further provided that “[t]he parties shall have fourteen (14) days from 19 the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within which to file specific written 20 objections with the Court.” (Id. at 9.) 21 Here, no such objections have been filed and the time to object has expired. Thus, 22 the Court accepts Judge Boyle’s recommendation. See, e.g., Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 23 149-50 (1985) (“It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review 24 of a magistrate’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when 25 neither party objects to those findings.”); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 26 (D. Ariz. 2003) (“[N]o review is required of a magistrate judge’s report and 27 recommendation unless objections are filed.”). See also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 28 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[T]he district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.”). 2 Accordingly, 3 IT IS ORDERED that: 4 1. The R&R (Doc. 45) is accepted. 5 2. Plaintiffs claims against Defendant Trinitee Sapp are dismissed pursuant to 6 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f)(3). 7 Dated this 6th day of January, 2022. 8 9 Lm ee” 10 f t _o——— Dominic W. Lanza 11 United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_2-