Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01094/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01094-1/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

Anthony Rodriguez, aka Anthony Aaron

Cox, 

Plaintiff, 

v.

Dora B. Schriro, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-07-1094-PHX-DGC (MHB)

ORDER

Pending before the Court are Plaintiff Anthony Rodriguez’s motion for review of

complaint for class action certification and United States Magistrate Judge Michelle H.

Burns’ Report and Recommendation (“R&R”). Dkt. ##27, 36. The R&R recommends that

the Court deny the motion because Plaintiff Anthony Rodriguez has not met the prerequisites

for class certification. Dkt. #36 at 3. 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 (citing 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1); 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) (“The district judge . . . shall make a de novo

Case 2:07-cv-01094-DGC-MHB Document 49 Filed 11/27/07 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 -

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

written objection has been made[.]”). The Court will accept the R&R and deny the motion.

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 Michelle H. Burns’ R&R (Dkt. #36) is accepted.

2. Plaintiff Anthony Rodriguez’s motion for review of complaint for class action

certification (Dkt. #36) is denied.

DATED this 26th day of November, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-01094-DGC-MHB Document 49 Filed 11/27/07 Page 2 of 2