Mayfield 288368 v. Mohave, County of

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: June 26, 2025
• Docket: 3:24-cv-08116
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

9 Anthony Kyle Mayfield, No. CV-24-08116-PCT-SHD (JZB)

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Unknown Flores, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) from the 16 Magistrate Judge recommending that Defendant Officer Flores answer Count one of the 17 First Amended Complaint, that Counts Two and Three be dismissed, and that Defendants 18 Sharpe and Mohave County Sheriff be dismissed. (Doc. 13.) Plaintiff filed his Complaint 19 on June 12, 2024. (Doc. 1.) The Complaint was served on Defendant Flores on November 20 25, 2024. (Doc. 11). Plaintiff amended his Complaint on October 24, 2024, (Doc. 8). 21 Defendant Flores has not been served the First Amended Complaint. 22 On May 22, 2025, Magistrate Judge John Z. Boyle issued the pending R&R. (Doc. 23 13.) No objections to the R&R have been filed and the deadline to file has expired. The 24 R&R advised Plaintiff: 25 The parties shall have 14 days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the 26 Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), 6(b) and 72. 27 Thereafter, the parties have 14 days within which to file a response to the objections. Failure to timely file objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report 28 and Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report and 1 Recommendation by the district court without further review. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). 2 3 (Doc. 13 at 3.) 4 This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 5 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). As the R&R 6 indicated, it is “clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and 7 recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. 8 Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original); 9 Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F.Supp.2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (“Following Reyna- 10 Tapia, this Court concludes that de novo review of factual and legal issues is required if 11 objections are made, ‘but not otherwise.’”); Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Ctr. v. U.S. 12 Bureau of Land Mgmt., 589 F.3d 1027, 1032 (9th Cir. 2009) (the district court “must review 13 de novo the portions of the [Magistrate Judge’s] recommendations to which the parties 14 object.”). District courts are not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that 15 is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (emphasis 16 added); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (“[T]he court shall make a de novo determination 17 of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which objection is made.”). 18 No objections having been received, the Court will adopt the recommendations of 19 the magistrate judge and order that the Clerk of Court send a copy of the First Amended 20 Complaint to Defendant Flores. Accordingly, 21 IT IS ORDERED that the R&R (Doc. 13) is adopted. 22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Sharpe and Mohave County Sheriff 23 are dismissed from this matter, with prejudice. 24 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Counts Two and Three of the First Amended 25 Complaint are dismissed, with prejudice. 26 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall send a copy of this 27 Order and the First Amended Complaint to Defendant Flores at the Mohave County Adult 28 Detention Center, 501 W Highway 66, Kingman, Arizona, 86401. 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Flores must answer Count One of the First Amended Complaint or otherwise respond by appropriate motion by no later than 3|| Friday, July 25, 2025. 4 Dated this 26th day of June, 2025. 5 6 / ,

° H le Sharad H. Desai 10 United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_3-