Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-00406/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-00406-4/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Shalek E Modee,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Corizon Health, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-19-00406-PHX-DLR (JFM)

ORDER 

Before the Court is United States Magistrate Judge James F. Metcalf’s Report and 

Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 200), which recommends that Defendant Tana be 

dismissed without prejudice. The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had 

fourteen days to file objections to the R&R and that failure to file timely objections could 

be considered a waiver of the right to obtain review of the R&R. See United States v. 

Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Neither party filed objections, which 

relieves the Court of its obligation to review the R&R. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121; 

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (“[Section 636(b)(1)] does not . . . require any 

review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 

72(b)(3) (“The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s 

disposition that has been properly objected to.”). “Unless this court has definite and firm 

conviction that the [Magistrate Judge] committed a clear error of judgment, [this court] 

will not disturb [the] decision.” Jackson v. Bank of Hawaii, 902 F.2d 1385, 1387 (9th Cir. 

Case 2:19-cv-00406-DLR-JFM Document 212 Filed 02/04/20 Page 1 of 2
- 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

1990) (citation omitted).

The Court has nonetheless independently reviewed the R&R and finds that it is welltaken. The Court therefore will accept the R&R in its entirety. 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”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The 

district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further 

evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.”).

IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Metcalf’s R&R (Doc. 200) is 

ACCEPTED. Defendant Tana is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Dated this 4th day of February, 2020.

Douglas L. Rayes

United States District Judge

Case 2:19-cv-00406-DLR-JFM Document 212 Filed 02/04/20 Page 2 of 2