Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02853/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02853-2/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

Edward Hernandez, 

Plaintiff, 

v.

Dora Schriro, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV05-2853-PHX-DGC (JM)

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration and United States

Magistrate Judge Marshall’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”). Dkt. ##46, 56. The

R&R recommends that the Court grant the motion and reinstate Counts I and III of the

Complaint. Dkt. #56 at 1, 6. 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 6 (citing United States v. ReynaTapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc)).

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) (“The district judge . . . shall make a de novo

determination . . . of any portion of the magistrate judge’s disposition to which specific

written objection has been made[.]”). The Court has nonetheless reviewed Judge Marshall’s

R&R and finds it well-taken. The Court will accept the R&R, grant Plaintiff’s motion, and

Case 2:05-cv-02853-DGC Document 58 Filed 10/18/06 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 -

reinstate Counts I and III of the Complaint. 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) (same).

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Magistrate Judge Marshall’s R&R (Dkt. #56) is accepted.

2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. #46) is granted and Counts I and

III of the Complaint are reinstated.

3. Magistrate Judge Marshall will continue supervision of this case.

DATED this 18th day of October, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-02853-DGC Document 58 Filed 10/18/06 Page 2 of 2