Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01021/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01021-3/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

JDN

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Frank Silva Roque, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Dora B. Schriro, et al.

Defendants, 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

No. CV 06-1021-PHX-PGR (MEA) 

ORDER 

Plaintiff Frank Silva Roque filed this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

against various officials from the Arizona Department of Corrections (ADC) (Doc. #33).

Among his four counts is a claim against ADC Director Dora Schriro, Warden John

Ontiveros, and Deputy Warden C. Neese alleging that Plaintiff was placed in cell with

conditions that violated his Eighth Amendment rights (Count IV) (id. at 6A). Ontiveros has

not yet been served.

Plaintiff has filed a “Combination Motion to Dismiss a Defendant and Motion to Add

a Defendant” (Doc. #44). He seeks to dismiss Ontiveros as a defendant and amend his

complaint by replacing Ontiveros with Robert Stewart, Ontiveros’ successor as warden (id.).

There was no response to the motion.

Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Aspey’s Report and Recommendation

addressing Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. #50). The Report and Recommendation recommends

denying the motion (id.). Neither party has filed objections; thus, the Court is not obligated

to review the Report and Recommendation. See U.S. v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121

(9th Cir. 2003) (en banc); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“[t]he district judge must determine de

Case 2:06-cv-01021-PGR Document 71 Filed 04/01/08 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

novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to”).

Even so, the Court has reviewed Judge Aspey’s Report and Recommendation and

incorporates and adopts it.

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Aspey (Doc. #50) is

adopted. 

(2) Plaintiff’s “Combination Motion to Dismiss a Defendant and Motion to Add a

Defendant” (Doc. #44) is denied.

DATED this 31st day of March, 2008.

Case 2:06-cv-01021-PGR Document 71 Filed 04/01/08 Page 2 of 2