Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_11-cv-00334/USCOURTS-azd-4_11-cv-00334-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Anthony Allen Oliver, 

Plaintiff,

v.

City of Tucson, et al., 

Defendant, _______________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV 11-334 TUC DCB

O R D E R

This matter was referred to Magistrate Judge D. Thomas Ferraro, on September 26, 2011,

and Judge Ferraro issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) on June 14, 2012, advising the

Court to grant the Plaintiff’s motion to voluntarily dismiss his case, with prejudice. 

Plaintiff filed his motion to voluntarily dismiss his case in response to two motions to

dismiss filed by the Defendants. In response to Plaintiff’s motion for voluntary dismissal, the

Defendants objected to dismissal of the action without prejudice, pursuant to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 41, because subsection a(1)(B) provides for dismissal to operate as an

adjudication on the merits (a dismissal with prejudice) if “‘the plaintiff has previously dismissed

any federal- or state-court action based on or including the same claim.’” (Doc. 58: R&R at 1-

2.) Plaintiff had previously “voluntarily dismissed a prior action including claims in this suit

(negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress and malicious prosecution) and the

suits are based on the same factual premise and claims generally, [therefore] a voluntary

dismissal at this stage would be with prejudice under the rules.” Id. at 2.

The Magistrate Judge issued an Order allowing the Plaintiff to withdraw his motion to

dismiss and respond to the Defendants’ pending motions to dismiss. The Order was returned

to the Court as not deliverable because the Plaintiff had been released and not notified the Court

Case 4:11-cv-00334-DCB-DTF Document 69 Filed 08/23/12 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 -

of his changed address. Subsequent to the issuance of the R&R by the Magistrate Judge, the

Plaintiff filed a Notice of Change of Address and a motion for an extension of time to respond

to the motions to dismiss. The Court denied the extension of time, but extended the deadline

for objecting to the R&R and allowed the Plaintiff to include arguments responsive to the

motions to dismiss in his Objection to the R&R. (Doc. 66.)

The time for filing objections has expired, and Plaintiff has not filed any objection.

The duties of the district court, when reviewing a R&R of a Magistrate Judge, 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, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made

by the magistrate judge.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When the parties object

to a R&R, “‘[a] judge of the [district] court shall make a de novo determination of those portions

of the [R&R] to which objection is made.’” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985)

(quoting 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)). When no objections are filed, the district court does not need

to 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); see also 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).

While there are no objections and review has, therefore, been waived, the Court

nevertheless reviews at a minimum, de novo, the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions of law.

Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449,

455 (9th Cir. 1998) (conclusions of law by a magistrate judge reviewed de novo); Martinez v.

Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 1991) (failure to object standing alone will not ordinarily

waive question of law, but is a factor in considering the propriety of finding waiver)). The

Court finds the R&R to be thorough and well-reasoned, without any clear error in law or fact.

See United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617-618 (9th Cir. 1989) (citing 28 U.S.C. §

Case 4:11-cv-00334-DCB-DTF Document 69 Filed 08/23/12 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 -

636(b)(1)(A) as providing for district court to reconsider matters delegated to magistrate judge

when there is clear error or recommendation is contrary to law). The Court accepts and adopts

the R&R as the opinion of the Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). For the reasons stated

in the R&R, the Court dismisses this action with prejudice.

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation [Doc. # 58] is adopted as the

opinion of the Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss Case (Doc. 54) is

GRANTED WITH PREJUDICE.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss (Doc. 48 and 50)

are summarily GRANTED, pursuant to LRCiv 7.2(i), for Plaintiff’s failure to respond. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall enter Judgment

accordingly.

DATED this 21st day of August, 2012.

Case 4:11-cv-00334-DCB-DTF Document 69 Filed 08/23/12 Page 3 of 3