Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_16-cv-00190/USCOURTS-azd-4_16-cv-00190-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Virgil L Light,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Karl D Elledge, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV-16-00190-TUC-RM (JR)

ORDER 

 On September 1, 2016, Magistrate Judge Jacqueline M. Rateau issued a Report 

and Recommendation (Doc. 15) recommending that this Court grant Defendants’ Motion 

to Dismiss (Doc. 8). No objections to the Report and Recommendation were filed, and 

the deadline for filing objections has expired. 

 A district judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions” of a 

magistrate judge’s “report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which 

objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The advisory committee’s notes to Rule 

72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure state that, “[w]hen no timely objection is 

filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record 

in order to accept the recommendation” of a magistrate judge. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) 

advisory committee’s note to 1983 addition. See also Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 

F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999) (“If no objection or only partial objection is made, the 

district court judge reviews those unobjected portions for clear error.”); Prior v. Ryan, 

CV 10-225-TUC-RCC, 2012 WL 1344286, at *1 (D. Ariz. Apr. 18, 2012) (reviewing for 

Case 4:16-cv-00190-RM-JR Document 17 Filed 11/16/16 Page 1 of 2
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

clear error unobjected-to portions of Report and Recommendation). 

 The Court has reviewed Judge Rateau’s Report and Recommendation, the parties’ 

briefs, and the record. The Court finds no error in Judge Rateau’s Report and 

Recommendation. Accordingly, 

 IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 15) is accepted 

and adopted in full. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 8) is 

granted. Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1) is dismissed with leave to amend, subject to 

the limitations described in Judge Rateau’s Report and Recommendation. Within 30 

days from the date this Order is filed, Plaintiff may file an amended complaint that cures 

the deficiencies outlined in Judge Rateau’s Report and Recommendation. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint 

within 30 days, the Clerk of Court shall, without further notice, dismiss this action with 

prejudice. 

 Dated this 16th day of November, 2016. 

Honorable Rosemary Márquez

United States District Judge

 

Case 4:16-cv-00190-RM-JR Document 17 Filed 11/16/16 Page 2 of 2