Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00630/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00630-1/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Gerlando Curreri, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Paul Babeu, et al., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV09-630-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 49) on

October 22, 2010. Defendants filed their Response (Doc. 50) on November 4, 2010. The

Magistrate Judge entered a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 57) on December 10, 2010,

recommending that the undersigned deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to file Second

Amended Complaint and deny a certificate of appealability if sought by Plaintiff.

Neither party filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation. The Court

therefore hereby accepts the R&R to the extent it recommends denying leave to file a Second

Amended Complaint. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985)(finding that district

courts are not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject

of an objection” (emphasis added)); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th

Cir. 2003)(en banc)(“statute makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate

judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise”

(emphasis in original)); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F.Supp.2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz.

Case 2:09-cv-00630-JAT Document 71 Filed 03/17/11 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 -

2003). The Court modifies the Report and Recommendation to eliminate the suggestion that

the undersigned deny a certificate of appealability should Plaintiff seek one because a

certificate of appealability pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254 does not apply outside of certain

habeas writs. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED Accepting and adopting the Magistrate’s Report and

Recommendation (Doc. 57) with the slight modification noted above.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Second

Amended Complaint (Doc. 49).

DATED this 16th day of March, 2011.

Case 2:09-cv-00630-JAT Document 71 Filed 03/17/11 Page 2 of 2