James David Kline v. City of Tucson

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: April 27, 2026
• Docket: 4:26-cv-00018
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

9 James David Kline, No. CV-26-00018-TUC-JGZ

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 City of Tucson,

13 Defendant. 14 15 On April 9, 2026, Magistrate Judge Jacqueline M. Rateau issued a Report and 16 Recommendation (“R&R”) in which she recommended the Court grant Plaintiff’s IFP 17 Application and dismiss the Complaint. (Doc. 13.) The R&R notified Plaintiff he had 18 fourteen (14) days from the date of the R&R to file any objections. No objections have 19 been filed. 20 This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 21 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). “[T]he district 22 judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if 23 objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 24 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original). District courts are not required to conduct 25 “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 26 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. 27 The Court has reviewed Judge Rateau’s R&R and the Complaint. The Court finds 28 the R&R well-reasoned and agrees with Judge Rateau’s conclusion that the IFP 1 Application should be granted and the Complaint should be dismissed with leave to 2 amend.1 See Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d at 1448 (leave to amend is liberally granted unless 3 absolutely clear deficiencies cannot be cured by amendment). The Court has provided the 4 reasons for the dismissal to permit Plaintiff to make an intelligent decision whether to file 5 a First Amended Complaint. See Bonanno v. Thomas, 309 F.2d 320, 322 (9th Cir. 1962). 6 Any amended complaint filed by Plaintiff must be retyped or rewritten in its entirety 7 and may not incorporate any part of the original Complaint by reference. An amended 8 complaint must be clearly designated as the First Amended Complaint on the face of the 9 document and formatted in compliance with LRCiv 7.1. Plaintiff is advised that if an 10 amended complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the Court will 11 likely dismiss this action. Additionally, Plaintiff is advised that if he fails to timely comply 12 with every provision of this Order, this action will be dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 13 41(b). See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992) (district court may 14 dismiss action for failure to comply with any order of the Court). Accordingly, 15 // 16 // 17 // 18 // 19 // 20 // 21 // 22 // 23 // 24 // 25 // 26

27 1 The Court suggests Plaintiff review the Court’s informational Handbook for Self- Represented Litigants, available at https://www.azd.uscourts.gov/proceeding-without- 28 attorney-0, prior to submitting an amended complaint. l IT IS ORDERED: 2 1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 13) 1s accepted and adopted in full. 3|| Plaintiff's IFP Application (Doc. 2) is granted, and Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 1) is 4|| dismissed without prejudice. 5 2. If Plaintiff fails to file a First Amended Complaint within 30 days, the Clerk || of Court must, without further notice, enter a judgment of dismissal of this action without 7 || prejudice. 8 Dated this 24th day of April, 2026. 9 0 LL i // Jennifer G. i ps 12 Chiet United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_3-