Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00940/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00940-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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

Daniel M. Bustamante, 

Plaintiff, 

v.

Hector Gonzales, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV07-940-PHX-DGC (JRI)

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Defendant Maish’s motion to set aside entry of default

and United States Magistrate Judge Irwin’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”).

Dkt. ##81, 85. The R&R recommends that the default entered against Defendant Maish on

April 14, 2009 (Dkt. #80) be set aside and that Defendant Maish have ten days from entry

of this order to file an answer or otherwise respond to the second amended complaint. The

Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had ten 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. Id. at 3-4 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d

1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)).

The parties did not file 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.”). The

Case 2:07-cv-00940-DGC-JRI Document 87 Filed 06/18/09 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 -

Court will accept the R&R and set aside the default entered against Defendant Maish on

April 14, 2009 (Dkt. #80). 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:

1. Magistrate Judge Irwin’s R&R (Dkt. #85) is accepted.

2. The default entered against Defendant Maish on April 14, 2009 (Dkt. #80) is

set aside. 

3. Defendant Maish shall file an answer or otherwise respond to the second

amended complaint (Dkt. #54) on or before June 30, 2009. 

DATED this 17th day of June, 2009.

Case 2:07-cv-00940-DGC-JRI Document 87 Filed 06/18/09 Page 2 of 2