Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_08-cv-00017/USCOURTS-azd-4_08-cv-00017-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 441
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Voting
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other 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

1

The Court notes that Plaintiffs filed a document entitled “comments upon the terminology

used in report and recommendation.” The comments were a few short sentences and did not contain

any objections to the Report and Recommendation. Rather, the thrust of the brief comments was

that Plaintiffs entitled certain documents as “Amendment to Complaint” and “Amended Complaint”

whereas the Report and Recommendation referred to those documents as “Amended Complaint” and

“Second Amended Complaint.” Plaintiffs requested that the Court use Plaintiffs’ terminology. The

terminology used is not important as it is clear to the Court and should be clear to all parties that the

dismissal recommended in the Report and Recommendation pertains to the most recent “amended

complaint” that was officially filed (see Doc. #37) pursuant to Magistrate Judge Estrada’s Order (see

Doc. #35) granting Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file an amended complaint (see Doc.#31).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Debra L. Harvey, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Janet Napolitano, Governor, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 08-17-TUC-FRZ (HCE)

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss. On August 28, 2008, United

States Magistrate Judge Hector C. Estrada issued a Report and Recommendation

recommending that the motion be granted. 

The Report and Recommendation indicated that any party could file written objections

within ten days after being served with a copy of the Report and Recommendation. The

parties have not filed any objections to the Report and Recommendation.1

 As such, the Court

will not consider any objections or new evidence. See generally United States v. ReynaTapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)(en banc)(failure to timely file objections to any

Case 4:08-cv-00017-FRZ Document 39 Filed 09/18/08 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 -

factual or legal determination of the Magistrate Judge may be considered a waiver of the

party’s right to de novo consideration of the issues).

The Court has reviewed the entire record and concludes that Magistrate Judge Estrada’s

recommendations are not clearly erroneous. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72;

Johnson v. Zema Systems Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999); Conley v. Crabtree, 14

F. Supp. 2d 1203, 1204 (D. Or. 1998). 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

(1) United States Magistrate Judge Estrada's Report and Recommendation (Doc. #36) is

accepted and adopted.

(2) Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted; the amended complaint (Doc. #37) is dismissed

as to all named Defendants without prejudice.

(3) The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly.

DATED this 17th day of September, 2008.

Case 4:08-cv-00017-FRZ Document 39 Filed 09/18/08 Page 2 of 2