Davis 331794 v. Morelos

Opinion

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

9 Baron Dupree Davis, No. CV-24-01973-PHX-SHD (DMF)

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 B. Morelos, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) from 16 Magistrate Judge Deborah M. Fine, (Doc. 49), recommending that the Court deny 17 Plaintiff’s Request for Leave to Amend Complaint, (Doc. 34). No objections to the R&R 18 have been filed and the deadline to file has expired. The R&R advised Plaintiff: 19 The parties shall have fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of this 20 recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, 72. The parties shall 21 have fourteen days within which to file responses to any objections. Failure 22 to file timely objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report and 23 Recommendation by the District Court without further review. See United 24 States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). 25 (Doc. 49 at 11.) 26 This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 27 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). As the R&R 28 indicated, it is “clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and 1 || recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna- 2|| Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original); Schmidt v. || Johnstone, 263 F.Supp.2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (“Following Reyna-Tapia, this Court concludes that de novo review of factual and legal issues is required if objections are made, || ‘but not otherwise.’”); Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Ctr. v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt. , 589 6|| F.3d 1027, 1032 (9th Cir. 2009) (the district court “must review de novo the portions of 7\| the [Magistrate Judge’s] recommendations to which the parties object.”). District courts 8 || are not required to conduct “any review at all... of any issue that is not the subject of an 9|| objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (emphasis added); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (“[T]he court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the 11 || [report and recommendation] to which objection is made.”). 12 No objections having been received, 13 IT IS ORDERED that the R&R (Doc. 49) is accepted. Plaintiff's Request for □□ Leave to Amend Complaint, (Doc. 34), is DENIED. 15 Dated this 10th day of July, 2025. 16 17 / 18 2 / 19 20 H le Sharad H. Desai 21 United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_2-