Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_08-cv-00009/USCOURTS-azd-4_08-cv-00009-9/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

1

The Court reviews de novo the objected-to portions of the Report and Recommendation.

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The Court reviews for clear error the unobjected-to

portions of the Report and Recommendation. Johnson v. Zema Systems Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739

(7th Cir. 1999); see also Conley v. Crabtree, 14 F. Supp. 2d 1203, 1204 (D. Or. 1998). The Court

notes that Pima County argues that Plaintiff has improperly attempted to insert new arguments and

claims that were not contained in either the Third Amended Complaint, were not at issue during

discovery and discovery has closed, or were not properly raised before Magistrate Judge Guerin.

See Pima County Response to Objections at 4-7. The Court agrees; these new issues are

procedurally improper and otherwise do nothing to undermine the analysis leading to the dismissal

of this case as discussed in Report and Recommendation.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Armando Valles, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Pima County, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 08-9-TUC-FRZ

ORDER

Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation issued by Magistrate Judge

Jennifer C. Guerin. In her Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Guerin

recommends that the Court enter an Order denying Plaintiffs’ partial motion for summary

judgment and granting Pima County’s motion for summary judgment. As the Court finds

that the Report and Recommendation appropriately resolved the motions for summary

judgment, Plaintiffs’ objections are denied.1

Case 4:08-cv-00009-FRZ-JCG Document 300 Filed 03/04/11 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 -

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

(1) Magistrate Judge Guerin’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 295) is accepted and

adopted.

(2) Plaintiffs’ partial motion for summary judgment (Doc. 276) is denied.

(3) Pima County’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 279) is granted and this case is

dismissed with prejudice.

(4) The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment and close the file in this case.

DATED this 2nd day of March, 2011.

Case 4:08-cv-00009-FRZ-JCG Document 300 Filed 03/04/11 Page 2 of 2