Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-01972/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-01972-1/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

John Leo Davis,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Unknown Jeans,

Defendant.

No. CV-19-01972-PHX-SMB (CDB)

ORDER 

Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of 

Magistrate Judge Camille D. Bibles (Doc. 19). The R&R recommends that Defendants 

motion for leave to file a third amended complaint be denied. The Magistrate Judge advised 

the parties that they had fourteen days to file objections to the R&R. (R&R at 19) (citing 

Rule 72(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; Rule 8(b), Rules Governing Section 2254 

Proceedings). Petitioner filed objections on February 13, 2020 (Doc. 20).

The Court has considered the objections and reviewed the Report and 

Recommendation de novo. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that 

the court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and 

Recommendation to which specific objections are made). Specifically, Plaintiff disagrees 

with Magistrate Judge Camille Bibles’ conclusion that the proposed third amended 

complaint failed to state a claim as to Counts 1 and 3.

The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s determinations, accepts the 

recommended decision within the meaning of Rule 72(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., and overrules 

Case 2:19-cv-01972-SMB-CDB Document 24 Filed 03/20/20 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

Petitioner’s objections. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that the district court “may 

accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the 

magistrate”).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the 

Magistrate Judge (Doc. 19) is accepted and Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend Second 

Amended Complaint (Doc. 17) is DENIED.

Dated this 19th day of March, 2020.

Case 2:19-cv-01972-SMB-CDB Document 24 Filed 03/20/20 Page 2 of 2