Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01727/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01727-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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

1 For clarification, the court notes that the Magistrate Judge’s Order

and R&R refers to “Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend, filed January 27, 2011 (Doc. 13).”

Doc. 16 at 1:11-12 (emphasis added). Because that motion was unsigned, the

Magistrate Judge properly ordered plaintiff to file a signed copy of that motion

within 14 days, “after which th[at] motion [doc. 13) w[ould] be stricken.” Doc.

14 at 1:23-25. Plaintiff complied with that order and on February 11, 2011, timely

filed a signed “Motion for Leave to Submit Second Amended Complaint” (doc. 15).

That motion is identical to docket 13, except it is signed and does not include a

copy of the proposed SAC, which had previously been filed as an attachment to the

original motion to amend (doc. 13-1). 

In light of this history, although the Magistrate Judge’s order refers to

docket 13 when he granted plaintiff’s motion to amend, clearly he meant to refer

to docket 15 - the signed motion to amend. In accordance with the Magistrate

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Richard Theodore Fifer, )

)

Plaintiff, ) No. CIV 10-1727-PHX-RCB (JRI)

)

vs. ) O R D E R

)

City of Phoenix, et al. )

)

Defendants. ) )

On February 16, 2011, the Magistrate Judge filed an Order and 

Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 16). The Magistrate Judge

granted plaintiff’s motion to file a second amended complaint

(“SAC”),1 and recommended that counts II and III of that SAC be

Case 2:10-cv-01727-RCB Document 20 Filed 04/21/11 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

Judge’s order, that motion has been granted. Doc. 16 at 1:5:18-19. The docket

should so reflect.

Additionally, evidently because plaintiff did not include a copy of the SAC

as an attachment to his signed motion to amend, the Magistrate Judge ordered the

filing of docket 13-1 -- the proposed SAC which was attached to the unsigned

motion. Id. at 5:20-21. That document serves as the SAC and was the subject of

the pending R&R. 

2 This takes into account the additional three days allotted to

plaintiff in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d) because, as the docket sheet

indicates, the R&R was served upon him by mail. 

- 2 -

dismissed without prejudice as to defendant City of Phoenix. R&R

(Doc. 16) at 5:24-26. He further recommended that defendants

McCraw, Friedman, and Maricopa County be required to answer counts

I and IV of the SAC. Id. at 5:27-6:1. 

In that R&R, the Magistrate Judge specifically instructed the

parties that, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, they “shall have

fourteen (14) days from the date of service of a copy of this

recommendation within which to file specific written objections

with the Court. Id. at 7:20-22. None of the parties have filed

objections to that R&R, and the fourteen day time frame for so

doing has passed.2 

When reviewing an R&R issued by a Magistrate Judge, this 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). Only if an objection is made, must this court conduct

a de novo review of the Magistrate Judge’s findings and

recommendations. Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 (9th Cir.

2005). That is because “[n]either the Constitution nor the

[Federal Magistrates Act] requires a district judge to review, de

novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves

accept as correct.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114,

1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (citations omitted). Indeed,

Case 2:10-cv-01727-RCB Document 20 Filed 04/21/11 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 -

construing the Federal Magistrates Act, the Supreme Court has found

that that “statute does not on its face require any review at all,

by either the district court or the court of appeals, of any issue

that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S.

140, 149, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). Consistent with

the foregoing authority, except to clarify the procedural posture

of this action, the court has not conducted a review of the pending

R&R because no objections were filed. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and

Recommendation (Doc. 16) is ACCEPTED in its entirety.

DATED this 20th day of April, 2011.

Copies to plaintiff pro se and counsel of record

Case 2:10-cv-01727-RCB Document 20 Filed 04/21/11 Page 3 of 3