Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_14-cv-02386/USCOURTS-azd-4_14-cv-02386-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

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 

Treestump Woodcraft LLC, et al.,

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

South Tucson, City of, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-14-02386-TUC-RM

ORDER 

 On January 26, 2016, Magistrate Judge Bruce G. Macdonald issued a Report and 

Recommendation (Doc. 102) recommending that this Court grant Defendants’ Motions 

for Summary Judgment (Docs. 72, 74), deny Defendants Yolanda Loya, Joseph Mason, 

and Fernando Loya’s request for attorneys’ fees, and remand this case to the Pima 

County Superior Court. No objections to the Report and Recommendation were filed. 

 A district judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions” of a 

magistrate judge’s “report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which 

objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The advisory committee’s notes to Rule 

72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure state that, “[w]hen no timely objection is 

filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record 

in order to accept the recommendation” of a magistrate judge. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) 

advisory committee’s note to 1983 addition. See also Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 

F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999) (“If no objection or only partial objection is made, the 

district court judge reviews those unobjected portions for clear error.”); Prior v. Ryan, 

Case 4:14-cv-02386-RM-BGM Document 103 Filed 02/17/16 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 

CV 10-225-TUC-RCC, 2012 WL 1344286, at *1 (D. Ariz. Apr. 18, 2012) (reviewing for 

clear error unobjected-to portions of Report and Recommendation). 

 The Court has reviewed Judge Macdonald’s Report and Recommendation, the 

parties’ briefs, and the record. The Court finds no error in Judge Macdonald’s Report 

and Recommendation. Accordingly, 

 IT IS ORDERED: 

1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 102) is accepted and adopted in 

full. 

2. The Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 72) filed by Defendant City of 

South Tucson and its officers is granted. 

3. The Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 74) filed by Defendants 

Yolanda Loya, Joseph Mason, and Fernando Loya is granted. 

4. Defendants Yolanda Loya, Joseph Mason, and Fernando Loya’s request for 

attorneys’ fees is denied. 

5. This case is remanded to the Pima County Superior Court (Cause # 

C20144790). 

6. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a certified copy of this Order to the 

Clerk of the Pima County Superior Court. 

 Dated this 16th day of February, 2016. 

Honorable Rosemary Márquez

United States District Judge

Case 4:14-cv-02386-RM-BGM Document 103 Filed 02/17/16 Page 2 of 2