Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_14-cv-02386/USCOURTS-azd-4_14-cv-02386-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Treestump Woodcraft LLC, et al.,

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

South Tucson, City of, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-14-02386-TUC-RM

ORDER 

 On December 10, 2015, Magistrate Judge Bruce G. Macdonald issued a Report 

and Recommendation (Doc. 99) recommending that this Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion to 

Order Clerk of Court to Enter Judgment (Doc. 55). No objections to the Report and 

Recommendation were filed. 

 A district judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions” of a 

magistrate judge’s “report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which 

objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The advisory committee’s notes to Rule 

72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure state that, “[w]hen no timely objection is 

filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record 

in order to accept the recommendation” of a magistrate judge. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) 

advisory committee’s note to 1983 addition. See also Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 

F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999) (“If no objection or only partial objection is made, the 

district court judge reviews those unobjected portions for clear error.”); Prior v. Ryan, 

CV 10-225-TUC-RCC, 2012 WL 1344286, at *1 (D. Ariz. Apr. 18, 2012) (reviewing for 

Case 4:14-cv-02386-RM-BGM Document 101 Filed 01/15/16 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 

clear error unobjected-to portions of Report and Recommendation). 

 The Court has reviewed Judge Macdonald’s Report and Recommendation, the 

parties’ briefs, and the record. The Court finds no error in Judge Macdonald’s Report 

and Recommendation. Accordingly, 

 IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 99) is accepted 

and adopted in full. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Order Clerk of Court to 

Enter Judgment (Doc. 55) is denied. 

 Dated this 15th day of January, 2016. 

Honorable Rosemary Márquez

United States District Judge

Case 4:14-cv-02386-RM-BGM Document 101 Filed 01/15/16 Page 2 of 2