Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-02479/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-02479-1/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

 

 On April 28, 2016, Plaintiff Scott Warren Boe filed a Motion for Leave to File 

Supplemental Pleading (Doc. 38), in which he requests permission to file a lodged second 

amended complaint. On July 6, 2016, the Honorable Deborah M. Fine, United States 

Magistrate Judge, issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 45), 

recommending that the Court deny the motion. Judge Fine advised Plaintiff that he had 

fourteen (14) 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 also 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, 72; United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 

1121 (9th Cir. 2003). 

 No timely objection has been filed, 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 

Scott Warren Boe, 

 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

No. CV-15-02479-PHX-SPL (DMF)

ORDER 

Case 2:15-cv-02479-SPL-DMF Document 52 Filed 07/27/16 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 

objected to.”). The Court has nonetheless reviewed the R&R and finds that it is welltaken. The Court will adopt 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)(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.”). Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 45) 

is accepted and adopted by the Court. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Motion for Leave to File Supplemental 

Pleading (Doc. 38) is denied. 

 Dated this 26th day of July, 2016.

Honorable Steven P. Logan

United States District Judge

 

Case 2:15-cv-02479-SPL-DMF Document 52 Filed 07/27/16 Page 2 of 2