Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_07-cv-00309/USCOURTS-azd-4_07-cv-00309-1/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

Cheryl Wells, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Hon. Jan E. Kearney, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-309-TUC-FRZ (JM)

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction. United

States Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Marshall issued a Report and Recommendation on

October 11, 2007 recommending that the motion be denied. 

The Report and Recommendation indicated that any party could file written objections

within ten days after being served with a copy of the Report and Recommendation. A copy

of the Report and Recommendation was mailed to Plaintiff on October 12, 2007. The parties

have not filed any objections to the Report and Recommendation. As such, the Court will

not consider any objections or new evidence. See generally United States v. Reyna-Tapia,

328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)(en banc)(failure to timely file objections to any factual

or legal determination of the Magistrate Judge may be considered a waiver of the party’s

right to de novo consideration of the issues).

Case 4:07-cv-00309-FRZ-JR Document 11 Filed 11/08/07 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

The Court has reviewed the entire record and concludes that Magistrate Judge

Marshall’s recommendations are not clearly erroneous. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R.

Civ. P. 72; Johnson v. Zema Systems Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999); Conley v.

Crabtree, 14 F. Supp. 2d 1203, 1204 (D. Or. 1998). 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

(1) United States Magistrate Judge Marshall's Report and Recommendation (Doc. #10) is

ACCEPTED AND ADOPTED.

(2) Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (Doc. #8) is DENIED. 

(3) As this case was originally assigned to Magistrate Judge Marshall, and the referral

pertains to all pretrial proceedings, the referral to Magistrate Judge Marshall is still

in effect to the extent pretrial proceedings remain in this case.

DATED this 8th day of November, 2007.

Case 4:07-cv-00309-FRZ-JR Document 11 Filed 11/08/07 Page 2 of 2