Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_12-cv-00580/USCOURTS-azd-4_12-cv-00580-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1981 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

Llyal Gordon, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Timothy Franz Geithner, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 12-580-TUC-RCC (LAB)

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, alleging improper

collection of taxes. The case was referred to a magistrate for a report and recommendation

(R&R). Magistrate Judge Leslie Bowman issued an R&R, recommending that this Court

dismiss this matter for failure to timely serve and for failure to respond (Doc. 39). The Court

accepts and adopts Magistrate Judge Bowman’s R&R as the findings of fact and conclusions

of law of this Court and dismisses this case with prejudice. 

This Court fully incorporates by reference the facts as presented in the “Discussion”

The duties of the district court in connection with a R & R are set forth in Rule 72 of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U .S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district court may “accept,

reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter

to the magistrate judge with instructions. FED.R.CIV.P. 72(b)(3); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Where the parties object to a R & R, “[a] judge of the [district] court shall make a de

Case 4:12-cv-00580-LAB Document 40 Filed 04/30/13 Page 1 of 3
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 -

novo determination of those portions of the [R & R] to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1); see Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985).

When no objection is filed, the district court need not review the R & R de novo. Wang v.

Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n. 13 (9th Cir.2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d

1114, 1121-22 (9th Cir.2003) (en banc). Therefore to the extent that no objection has been

made, arguments to the contrary have been waived. McCall v. Andrus, 628 F.2d 1185, 1187

(9th Cir.1980) (failure to object to Magistrate's report waives right to do so on appeal); see

also, Advisory Committee Notes to Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 (citing Campbell v. United States Dist.

Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir.1974) (when 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).

The Court will not disturb a Magistrate Judge's Order unless his factual findings are

clearly erroneous or his legal conclusions are contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).

“[T]he magistrate judge's decision ... is entitled to great deference by the district court.”

United States v. Abonce-Barrera, 257 F.3d 959, 969 (9th Cir.2001). A failure to raise an

objection waives all objections to the magistrate judge’s findings of fact. Turner v. Duncan,

158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998). A failure to object to a Magistrate Judge’s conclusion “is

a factor to be weighed in considering the propriety of finding waiver of an issue on appeal.”

Id. (internal citations omitted).

Plaintiff has filed no objections to the R&R (Doc. 39), which relieves the Court of

its obligation to review. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th

Cir.2003); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (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.”). This Court

considers the R&R to be thorough and well-reasoned, and after conducting its own de novo

review of the record, the Court agrees with Judge Bowman’s reasoning and will ADOPT the

Case 4:12-cv-00580-LAB Document 40 Filed 04/30/13 Page 2 of 3
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

- 3 -

R&R (Doc. 39). Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Bowman’s Report and Recommendation

(Doc. 39) is hereby ACCEPTED and ADOPTED as the findings of fact and conclusions

of law by this Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is dismissed with prejudice, and the

Clerk shall enter judgment and close this case.

DATED this 30th day of April, 2013.

Case 4:12-cv-00580-LAB Document 40 Filed 04/30/13 Page 3 of 3