Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00827/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00827-0/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 

Albert L Brinkman, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Charles L Ryan, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV-15-00827-PHX-ROS (BSB)

ORDER 

 Plaintiff commenced this civil rights action on May 6, 2015. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff 

subsequently amended the complaint three times. (Docs. 14, 23, 33.) In the Court’s 

screening of the Third Amended Complaint, the Court found Count Eight stated an 

Eighth Amendment excessive force claim and Count Nine stated a state-law negligence 

claim; the Court ordered Defendant Trujillo to answer Counts Eight and Nine; and the 

Court dismissed the remaining counts and Defendants without prejudice. (Doc. 34.) On 

June 17, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend the complaint for a fourth time. (Doc. 

37.) On June 22, 2016, Magistrate Judge Bridget S. Bade issued a Report and 

Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending the Court deny Plaintiff’s motion to file a 

fourth amended complaint. (Doc. 39.) Plaintiff objected to the R&R on June 29, 2016. 

(Doc. 40.) 

 A district judge “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 

recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Where any party 

has filed timely objections to the R&R, the district court’s review of the part objected to 

Case 2:15-cv-00827-ROS-BSB Document 57 Filed 11/23/16 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 

must be de novo. Id. After reviewing the record, the R&R, and the Plaintiff’s objections, 

the Court finds Plaintiff’s proposed fourth amended complaint is similar to the Third 

Amended Complaint and does not cure the deficiencies identified in the May 31, 2016 

screening order. (See Doc. 34.) Thus, the Court will adopt the R&R and deny Plaintiff’s 

Motion to Amend/Correct Complaint.1

 Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 39) is ADOPTED and 

Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend/Correct Complaint (Doc. 37) is DENIED. 

 Dated this 23rd day of November, 2016. 

Honorable Roslyn O. Silver

Senior United States District Judge

 

1

 The Third Amended Complaint (Doc. 33) remains the operative complaint in this matter. The only remaining claims from the Third Amended Complaint are Counts Eight and Nine against Defendant Trujillo. (Doc. 34.) 

Case 2:15-cv-00827-ROS-BSB Document 57 Filed 11/23/16 Page 2 of 2