Woods v. Shinn

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: September 29, 2021
• Docket: 2:20-cv-01530
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

9 Adam Kristopher Woods, No. CV-20-01530-PHX-JAT (CDB)

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 David Shinn, et al.,

13 Defendant. 14 15 Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of 16 Magistrate Judge Camille D. Bibles (Doc. 26) regarding Plaintiff’s Amended Motion to 17 Amend Complaint filed pursuant to Local Rule 15 (Doc. 20).1 The R&R recommends that 18 Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint be denied for: (1) failure to state a claim against 19 Dr. Paul; (2) failure to cure the deficiencies in Plaintiff’s original Complaint (Doc. 1) 20 identified in this Court’s Screening Order (Doc. 6); and (3) failure to state a plausible claim 21 that Dr. Baik or Centurion Medical’s actions caused Plaintiff to become addicted to heroin. 22 (Doc. 26 at 9). Magistrate Judge Bibles advised the parties that they had fourteen days to 23 file objections to the R&R. (Doc. 26 at 9–10). Neither party has filed objections.

24 1 Plaintiff filed a Motion to Amend Complaint on June 8, 2021 (Doc. 17) following this Court’s Screening Order dismissing Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Shinn, Baik, and 25 Mendoza, leaving only Plaintiff’s claim for inadequate medical care against Defendant Centurion Medical (Doc. 6 at 5–6). Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the Complaint, however, 26 failed to “attach a copy of the proposed amended complaint as an exhibit” to his Motion, as required by Local Rule 15.1(a). Magistrate Judge Bibles ordered Plaintiff to lodge his 27 proposed amended complaint by June 25, 2021 (Doc. 18). Plaintiff instead filed an Amended Motion to Amend Complaint (Doc. 20), attaching his original Motion to Amend 28 Complaint (Doc. 20-1), his original Complaint (Doc. 20-2), and his proposed First Amended Complaint (Doc. 20-3). 1 A district court’s standard of review of a magistrate judge’s report and 2 recommendation turns on whether the parties have timely objected. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). 3 It is “clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and 4 recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna- 5 Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original); Schmidt v. 6 Johnstone, 263 F.Supp.2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (“Following Reyna-Tapia, this Court 7 concludes that de novo review of factual and legal issues is required if objections are made, 8 ‘but not otherwise.’”); Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Ctr. v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 589 9 F.3d 1027, 1032 (9th Cir. 2009) (The district court “must review de novo the portions of 10 the [Magistrate Judge’s] recommendations to which the parties object.”). District courts 11 are not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an 12 objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (emphasis added); see also 28 U.S.C. 13 § 636(b)(1) (“[T]he court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the 14 [report and recommendation] to which objection is made.”).2 “Failure to make timely 15 objection to the magistrate [judge]’s report prior to its adoption by the district judge may 16 constitute a waiver of appellate review of the district judge’s order.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), 17 NOTES OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON RULES—1983, citing United States v. Walters, 638 18 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). 19 Accordingly, in the absence of objections, the Court agrees with the recommended 20 decision within the meaning of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). See 28 U.S.C. § 21 636(b)(1) (“A [district court judge] may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the 22 findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”). 23 /// 24 2 The Court notes that the Notes of the Advisory Committee on Rules appear to suggest a 25 clear error standard of review under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), citing Campbell. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), NOTES OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON RULES—1983 citing 26 Campbell v. United States Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 879 (The court “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the 27 record in order to accept the recommendation.”). The court in Campbell, however, appears to delineate a standard of review specific to magistrate judge findings in the motion to 28 suppress context. See Campbell, 501 F.2d at 206–207. As such, this Court follows the 9th Circuit’s more recent decision in Reyna-Tapia on this issue. 1 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of 2|| Magistrate Judge Bibles (Doc. 26) is accepted. 3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Amended Motion to Amend Complaint (Doc. 20) is DENIED. 5 Dated this 29th day of September, 2021. 6 7 '

9 James A. Teil Org Senior United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-3-