Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00617/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00617-4/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

AUBREY GAYLE PADGETT, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS; et al., 

 Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 08-0617-PHX-MHM (MEA)

ORDER

Plaintiff filed his Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on March 31, 2008,

alleging that Defendants were liable to him for violation of his constitutional rights during

his incarceration. (Dkt. #1). The matter was assigned to this Court and referred to

Magistrate Judge Mark E. Aspey. (Dkt. #2). On May 9, 2008, the Magistrate Judge

dismissed Counts II and III of Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to adequately state a claim

for violation of Plaintiff’s Eight Amendment rights. (Dkt. #4). As a result, the Arizona

Department of Corrections, Dora Schriro, and Deputy Warden Freeland were dismissed

as defendants in this matter. (Id.). Defendants Walker, Kirkland, and Krumpelman were

ordered to answer Count I of the Complaint, which alleged retaliation against Plaintiff for

asking to file a grievance. (Id.; Dkt. #1, p.3). However, Plaintiff filed an Amended

Complaint on May 27, 2008, prior to the date the remaining Defendants were served with

the original Complaint. (Dkt. #6). Defendants filed a motion asking the Court to screen

Case 2:08-cv-00617-MHM Document 70 Filed 03/26/09 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 -

the Amended Complaint, which was granted (Dkt. #28), and on August 19, 2008, the

Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation that the Court dismiss Counts II

and III of the Amended Complaint and the respective defendants, and order Defendants

Kirkland, Walker, and Krumpelman to answer Court I of the Amended Complaint. (Dkt.

#38).

On August 27, 2009, Plaintiff filed the pending Motion for Leave to File an

Amended Complaint. (Dkt. #39). Nevertheless, on November 26, 2008, the Court

adopted the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge in its entirety and

dismissed Counts II and III of the Amended Complaint and all defendants except

Defendants Kirkland, Walker, and Krumpelman. (Dkt. #52). The remaining defendants

filed an answer to the Amended Complaint on December 22, 2009 (Dkt. #54), and the

Magistrate Judge subsequently issued a Scheduling Order governing litigation of Count I

of the Amended Complaint. (Dkt. #56). Plaintiff then filed a Motion to Strike

Defendants’ Answer, which was denied by the Magistrate Judge on January 21, 2009. 

(Dkt. #61). Magistrate Judge Aspey filed the instant Report and Recommendation to

deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint on January 26,

2009. (Dkt. #63).

In his 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 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) (“The district judge must review the magistrate judge's findings and

recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.”); see 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1)(C) (“A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions

of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is

Case 2:08-cv-00617-MHM Document 70 Filed 03/26/09 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 -

made.”); Jones v. Wood, 207 F.3d 557, 562 n.2 (9th Cir. 2000) (“Failure to object to a

magistrate judge's recommendation waives all objections to the judge's findings of fact.”).

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. 

Plaintiff has already filed an Amended Complaint; he is not entitled to the current

proposed amendment of his First Amended Complaint as of right. In addition, Plaintiff’s

proposed amended complaint would be futile as the it merely seeks to add the same

Counts II and III, and the Court has already dismissed substantially similar claims in its

previous order adopting the earlier Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge (Dkt. #63) as the order of this Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Petitioner’s Motion for Leave to File a

Second Amended Complaint. (Dkt. #39). 

DATED this 24th day of March, 2009.

Case 2:08-cv-00617-MHM Document 70 Filed 03/26/09 Page 3 of 3