James David Kline v. City of Tucson

Opinion

WO

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

Plaintiff, ORDER

v.

City of Tucson,

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

1 The Court suggests Plaintiff review the Court’s informational Handbook for Self- Represented Litigants, available at https://www.azd.uscourts.gov/proceeding-without- attorney-0, prior to submitting an amended complaint. l IT IS ORDERED: 1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 13) 1s accepted and adopted in full. Plaintiff's IFP Application (Doc. 2) is granted, and Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 1) is dismissed without prejudice. 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 prejudice. Dated this 24th day of April, 2026. LL i // Jennifer G. i ps Chiet United States District Judge

_3-