Wilson v. Phoenix, City of

D. Arizona

Wilson v. Phoenix, City of

DecidedJune 8, 2023

Docket2:22-cv-01192

StatusUnknown

This text of Wilson v. Phoenix, City of (Wilson v. Phoenix, City of) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Wilson v. Phoenix, City of, (D. Ariz. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

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

9 Dequandrick Wilson, No. CV-22-01192-PHX-JAT (JFM)

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 City of Phoenix, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) from the 16 Magistrate Judge recommending that Defendants Knipp and Does 1 through 50 be 17 dismissed from this case without prejudice. (Doc. 29). Neither party has objected to the 18 R&R and the time for objecting has expired. 19 This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 20 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). It is “clear that 21 the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de 22 novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 23 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F.Supp.2d 24 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (“Following Reyna-Tapia, this Court concludes that de novo 25 review of factual and legal issues is required if objections are made, ‘but not otherwise.’”); 26 Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Ctr. v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 589 F.3d 1027, 1032 (9th 27 Cir. 2009) (the district court “must review de novo the portions of the [Magistrate Judge’s] 28 recommendations to which the parties object.”). 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, 2\| 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (emphasis added); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (“the court || shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] 4|| to which objection is made.”). 5 Based on the foregoing and because there is no objection, 6 IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 29) is accepted. 7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Knipp and Does 1 through 50 are 8 || DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). || Because other Defendants remain, the Clerk of the Court shall not enter judgment at this 10 || time. 11 Dated this 7th day of June, 2023. 12 13 i C 14 James A. Teilborg 15 Senior United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_2-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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

9 Dequandrick Wilson, No. CV-22-01192-PHX-JAT (JFM)

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 City of Phoenix, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) from the 16 Magistrate Judge recommending that Defendants Knipp and Does 1 through 50 be 17 dismissed from this case without prejudice. (Doc. 29). Neither party has objected to the 18 R&R and the time for objecting has expired. 19 This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 20 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). It is “clear that 21 the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de 22 novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 23 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F.Supp.2d 24 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (“Following Reyna-Tapia, this Court concludes that de novo 25 review of factual and legal issues is required if objections are made, ‘but not otherwise.’”); 26 Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Ctr. v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 589 F.3d 1027, 1032 (9th 27 Cir. 2009) (the district court “must review de novo the portions of the [Magistrate Judge’s] 28 recommendations to which the parties object.”). 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, 2\| 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (emphasis added); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (“the court || shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] 4|| to which objection is made.”). 5 Based on the foregoing and because there is no objection, 6 IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 29) is accepted. 7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Knipp and Does 1 through 50 are 8 || DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). || Because other Defendants remain, the Clerk of the Court shall not enter judgment at this 10 || time. 11 Dated this 7th day of June, 2023. 12 13 i C 14 James A. Teilborg 15 Senior United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Wilson v. Phoenix, City of, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilson-v-phoenix-city-of-azd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack