Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01336/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01336-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Patrick Neal Bradberry, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Dora B. Schriro, et al., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV05-1336-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Patrick Neal Bradberry’s (“Plaintiff”) “Partial Objection

and Appeal from the Magistrate Judges Report and Recommendation and Request for Court

Order to Issue a Subpoena to the State Nurse Registry to Obtain the Last Known Address of

Defendant Nurse Atkins and Full Name of Defendant Glass” (Doc. #256). 

I. BACKGROUND

On August 26, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ Motion to

Dismiss. (Doc. #240.) The Court dismissed several counts and some Defendants. The Order

provided that some of Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Garvin, Savage, Tucker, Lewis,

Glass, and Atkins survived, although those Defendants have not yet been served. 

Defendant Schriro has filed under seal the last known address of forty Defendants,

including Defendants Savage and Lewis. Defendant Schriro has stated that she was unable

to identify and provide an address for Defendant Glass and that she does not have a

residential address for Defendant Atkins or Garvin. Defendant Schriro has notified the Court

that Defendants Tucker and Pinkstaff are deceased.

Case 2:05-cv-01336-JAT Document 268 Filed 01/12/10 Page 1 of 3
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

- 2 -

II. DISCUSSION

The 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). The Court 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); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F.Supp.2d 1219, 1126 (D.Ariz.

2003)(“Following Reyna-Tapia, this Court concludes that de novo, review of factual and

legal issues is required if objections are made, ‘but not otherwise’”). The Court need not

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) (emphasis added); see also 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1) (“[T]he

court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and

recommendation] to which objection is made.”). 

Plaintiff’s Agreement with Certain Portions of the R&R

The Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court order the United States Marshall

to proceed with personal service on Defendants Savage, Lewis, and Garvin by a specific

date. Not surprisingly, Plaintiff agrees with this recommendation. Because Plaintiff does

not object to that portion of the R&R, the Court will accept that recommendation without

discussion. Thomas, 474 U.S. at 149. The United States Marshall shall personally serve

Defendants Savage, Lewis, and Garvin within one (1) month of the date of this Order. 

Plaintiff also does not object to the dismissal of Defendant Tucker from this case.

Accordingly, the Court adopts that recommendation and dismisses Defendant Tucker. 

Plaintiff’s Objections to the R&R

In the R&R, the Magistrate Judge recommends dismissing Defendants Glass and

Atkins from the case. In his October 22, 2008 response to the Court’s order to show cause

why Defendants Glass, Atkins, Garvin, and Tucker should not be dismissed, Plaintiff stated,

“Plaintiff is currently writing an amended complaint which he hopes to file on or about 10-

30-08. Defendants Glass and Atkins will not be named. However, others will be.” (Doc.

#125, p. 2). By not offering a reason for why they should not be dismissed in his response

Case 2:05-cv-01336-JAT Document 268 Filed 01/12/10 Page 2 of 3
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

- 3 -

to the order to show cause, Plaintiff essentially conceded he had not stated a claim against

Defendants Glass and Atkins. 

In his objection to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation regarding dismissal of

Glass and Atkins, Plaintiff simply states, “It is correct that if Plaintiff’s 3rd Amended

Complaint filed on 12-16-08 (Doc. #166) would have been filed he would have voluntarily

withdrawn defendants Glass and Atkins. No however, that is not acceptable.” (Doc. #256,

pp. 2-3). Plaintiff offers no legal basis for his objection to that portion of the Magistrate

Judge’s recommendation and has never provided a legal argument for why Defendants Glass

and Atkins should not be dismissed. The Court therefore will accept the Magistrate Judge’s

recommendation and dismiss Defendants Glass and Atkins.

Plaintiff also requests relief with regard to Defendant Boutin, but Defendant Boutin

was not the subject of the Recommendation and Report currently pending before the Court.

The Court will therefore deny the relief requested by Plaintiff.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED Accepting in its entirety the Report and Recommendation (Doc.

#254) of Magistrate Judge Aspey.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the United States Marshall shall effect personal

service on Defendants Savage, Lewis, and Garvin within one (1) month of the date of this

Order.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Dismissing all claims against Defendants Tucker, Glass,

and Atkins. 

DATED this 12th day of January, 2010.

Case 2:05-cv-01336-JAT Document 268 Filed 01/12/10 Page 3 of 3