Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00075/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00075-1/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

Victor A. Parsons, 

Plaintiff, 

v.

Charles L. Ryan, Ronolfo Macabuhay,

Terry Allred, Bruce McMarron, IHS Dr.

Roe, Dr. Adu-Tutu; 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-11-00075-PHX-NVW (MEA)

ORDER

Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of

Magistrate Judge Aspey (Doc. 28) regarding Plaintiff’s ’s Motion to Amend Complaint

(Doc. 21). The R&R recommends that the motion for leave to file an amended complaint

be denied. The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had fourteen days to file

objections to the R&R. (R&R at 15). Plaintiff filed his objection on August 3, 2011,

styled as an “Objection to Report and Recommendation/Motion for Reconsideration.”

(Docs. 30, 31.) 

The Court has considered the objections and reviewed the Report and

Recommendation de novo. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that

the court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and

Recommendation to which specific objections are made). The Court agrees with the

Case 2:11-cv-00075-NVW Document 32 Filed 08/05/11 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

Magistrate Judge's determinations, accepts the recommended decision within the meaning

of Rule 72(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., and overrules Plaintiff's objections. See 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1) (stating that the district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in

part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate”).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge (Doc. 28) is accepted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint (Doc.

21) is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 31)

is denied.

DATED this 5th day of August, 2011.

Case 2:11-cv-00075-NVW Document 32 Filed 08/05/11 Page 2 of 2