Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_19-cv-00035/USCOURTS-azd-4_19-cv-00035-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

Russell B Toomey,

Plaintiff,

v. 

State of Arizona, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-19-00035-TUC-RM (LAB)

ORDER 

On May 12, 2020, Magistrate Judge Leslie A. Bowman issued a Report and 

Recommendation (Doc. 105) recommending that this Court grant Plaintiff’s Motion to 

Certify Class (Doc. 88). 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, CV 10-225-TUCCase 4:19-cv-00035-RM-MAA Document 108 Filed 06/15/20 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

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 Bowman’s Report and Recommendation, the parties’ 

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

Recommendation. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 105) is accepted 

and adopted in full.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Certify Class (Doc. 88) is

granted.

Dated this 15th day of June, 2020.

Case 4:19-cv-00035-RM-MAA Document 108 Filed 06/15/20 Page 2 of 2