Harris v. Arizona, State of

Opinion

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

Plaintiff, ORDER

v.

State of Arizona,

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

Honorable Scott H. Rash _/ United States District Judge

_2-