Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-05416/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-05416-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- 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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Amador Navarro,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Charles L Ryan, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-19-05416-PHX-DLR (ESW)

ORDER 

Before the Court is United States Magistrate Judge Eileen S. Willett’s Report and 

Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 22), which recommends that the Court dismiss 

Defendants Triveno and John and Jane Does I-X 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, 

Case 2:19-cv-05416-DLR-ESW Document 24 Filed 05/06/20 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

902 F.2d 1385, 1387 (9th Cir. 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 Willett’s R&R (Doc. 22) is ACCEPTED. 

Defendants Triveno and John and Jane Does I-X are dismissed without prejudice.

Dated this 6th day of May, 2020.

Douglas L. Rayes

United States District Judge

Case 2:19-cv-05416-DLR-ESW Document 24 Filed 05/06/20 Page 2 of 2