Harris v. Arizona, State of

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: January 21, 2022
• Docket: 4:21-cv-00324
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

9 Deyoe R. Harris, No. CV-21-00324-TUC-SHR

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 State of Arizona,

13 Defendant. 14 15 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 16.) The 16 matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Jacqueline M. Rateau for a Report and 17 Recommendation. (“R&R”) (Doc. 14.) On January 4, 2022, Magistrate Judge Rateau filed 18 a R&R, recommending the Court dismiss without prejudice and without leave to amend 19 Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 17) Plaintiff has not filed an objection and 20 the deadline to do so has passed. 21 The Court must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or 22 specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. 23 § 636(b)(1)(C); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). However, the Court reviews for clear 24 error the unobjected to portions of the R&R. See Johnson v. Zema Systems Corp., 170 F.3d 25 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999); see also Conley v. Crabtree, 14 F. Supp. 2d 1203, 1204 (D. Or. 26 1998). The 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)(C); see also Fed. 28 R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). 1 The Court has reviewed and considered the Magistrate Judge’s R&R and related 2 || documents and finds no clear error. 3 IT IS ORDERED the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 17) is ADOPTED. 4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing without prejudice and without leave to 5 || amend Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 16.) 6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment 7\| accordingly. 8 Dated this 20th day of January, 2022. 9 10 /)

12 Honorable Scott H. Rash _/ United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_2-