Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02456/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02456-1/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

Erineo Cano, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Nicole Taylor, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 07-2456-PHX-ROS (MEA)

ORDER

On July 16, 2008, Magistrate Judge Mark E. Aspey issued a Report and

Recommendation (“R&R”). (Doc. 25). The parties had ten business days from the date of

service of a copy of the R&R within which to file written objections with the Court. F. R.

Civ. P. 72(b). No objections were filed by either party. 

The Court “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)(1). It is “clear that the

district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if

objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121

(9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219,

1126 (D. Ariz. 2003) (“Following Reyna-Tapia, this Court concludes that de novo review of

factual and legal issues is required if objections are made, 'but not otherwise.”'). District

courts are not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject

Case 2:07-cv-02456-ROS-MEA Document 31 Filed 08/14/08 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). No objection having been

made, the Court will adopt the R&R in full. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 25) is ADOPTED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Amend Complaint (Doc. 19) is

DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Extension of Time for Service

(Doc. 21) is DENIED as moot.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Supplement (Doc. 22) is DENIED.

DATED this 14th day of August, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-02456-ROS-MEA Document 31 Filed 08/14/08 Page 2 of 2