Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01399/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01399-1/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

Robert Anderson, 

Plaintiff, 

v.

Joseph Arpaio, Sheriff of Maricopa

County, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-06-1399-PHX-DGC (JJM)

ORDER

Plaintiff is a prisoner currently confined at the Arizona State Prison in Safford,

Arizona. Plaintiff previously was detained at the Lower Buckeye Jail in Maricopa County.

Plaintiff commenced this action by filing a pro se civil rights complaint on May 30, 2006.

Dkt. #1. The complaint alleges that the jail was severely overcrowded and that Plaintiff had

received unhealthy food. Id. On December 6, 2006, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the

complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Dkt. #8; see Dkt. ##10-11.

On April 4, 2006, United States Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Marshall issued a report

and recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the Court grant the motion to dismiss.

Dkt. #12. 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 4 (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) (en banc)).

The parties did not file objections, which relieves the Court of its obligation to review

Case 2:06-cv-01399-DGC Document 13 Filed 04/27/07 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 -

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

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 grant the motion

to dismiss. 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 Jacqueline Marshall’s R&R (Dkt. #12) is accepted.

2. Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. #8) is granted.

3. The Clerk shall terminate this action.

DATED this 26th day of April, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-01399-DGC Document 13 Filed 04/27/07 Page 2 of 2