Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02451/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02451-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Ernie Pete Ortega,

Plaintiff,

vs.

Dora Schriro, et al., 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-2451-PHX-MHM(JCG)

ORDER

Plaintiff, Ernie Pete Ortega, filed his pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42

U.S.C. §1983 [doc. 1]. On April 15, 2008, the Court granted Plaintiff’s second Application

to Proceed in Forma Pauperis [doc. 13]. On that same date, the Court screened Plaintiff’s

Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(a), ordered Defendant Hewitt to answer Count Two

of the Plaintiff’s original Complaint, and dismissed the remaining claims and Defendants

without prejudice. 

The Magistrate Judge filed her Report and Recommendation on August 22, 2008

recommending that (1) Counts One, Two and Four and Defendant Schriro be dismissed

without prejudice; (2) Defendant Hewitt be required to answer Counts Three and Five; (3)

Defendants Kraicinski, Sambora and Owens be required to answer Count Five; (4) Defendant

Durrenburg be required to answer Counts Seven and Eight. 

In her Report and Recommendation the Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they

had 10 days from the date of service of a copy of the Report and Recommendation within

Case 2:07-cv-02451-JWS Document 30 Filed 10/01/08 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 -

which to file specific written objections with the Court. The time to file such objections has

long since expired and no objections to the Report and Recommendation have been filed. 

Failure to timely file objections to any factual or legal determination of the Magistrate Judge

may be considered a waiver of a party’s right to de novo consideration of the issues. See

United States v. Reyna-Tapia 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).

After a complete and independent review of the issues presented, the Court finds itself

in agreement with the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.

IT IS ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge

as the order of this Court [Doc. 26]. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED as follows: 

(1) Counts One, Two and Four and Defendant Schriro are dismissed without

prejudice.

(2) Defendant Hewitt is required to answer Counts Three and Five.

(3) Defendants Kraicinski, Sambora and Owens are required to answer Count Five;

(4) Defendant Durrenburg is required to answer Counts Seven and Eight. 

DATED this 30th day of September, 2008. 

Case 2:07-cv-02451-JWS Document 30 Filed 10/01/08 Page 2 of 2