Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00940/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00940-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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

Daniel M. Bustamante, 

Plaintiff, 

v.

Hector Gonzales, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-07-0940 PHX-DGC (JRI)

ORDER

Pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended

Complaint, Plaintiff’s proposed Second Amended Complaint and United States Magistrate

Judge Jay R. Irwin’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”). Dkt. ##28, 29, 44. The R&R

recommends that the Court grant the motion to amend and file the proposed second amended

complaint. Dkt. #44 at 9. 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 11 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72; and

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1)).

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)(3) (“The district judge must determine de

novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.”). 

The Court will accept the R&R and grant the motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that

Case 2:07-cv-00940-DGC-JRI Document 53 Filed 09/19/08 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 -

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.”).

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Magistrate Judge Jay R. Irwin’s R&R (Dkt. #44) is accepted.

2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. #28)

is granted.

3. The Clerk shall file Plaintiff’s proposed Second Amended Complaint

(Dkt. #29).

DATED this 18th day of September, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-00940-DGC-JRI Document 53 Filed 09/19/08 Page 2 of 2