Dinsbach v. Harris

Opinion

Alexis Gabrielle Dinsbach, No. CV-18-03595-PHX-GMS (DMF)

Plaintiff, ORDER

v.

Candice Harris, et al.,

Defendants. Pending before the Court is a Motion for Sanctions and Notice of Good Faith Conferral filed by Defendants Maricopa County and Penzone (Doc. 81) and Magistrate Deborah M. Fine’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 88). The R&R recommends that the Court grant the Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 81). The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had fourteen days to file objections to the R&R and that failure to file timely objections could be considered a waiver of the right to obtain review of the R&R. Id. at 7 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)). The parties did not file objections, which relieves the Court of its obligation to review the R&R. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121; Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (“[Section 636(b)(1)] does not . . . require any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly 1 objected to.”). The Court will accept the R&R and grant the Motion for Sanctions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that the district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (‘The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.”). IT IS ORDERED: 1. Magistrate Judge Deborah M. Fine’s R&R (Doc. 88) is accepted. 2. Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 81) is granted pursuant to the R&R (Doc. 88). Dated this 9th day of September, 2020. i - A Whacrsay Sooo) Chief United States District Judge

_2-