Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_15-cv-00247/USCOURTS-azd-4_15-cv-00247-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 330
Nature of Suit: Federal Employers' Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Tort/Non-Motor Vehicle

---

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 

Tony Nixon, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Tyler D. Francis, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-15-00247-TUC-JGZ

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation issued by United 

States Magistrate Judge Charles R. Pyle that recommends granting Defendant United 

States of America’s Motion to Dismiss.1

 (Doc. 4.) As thoroughly explained by Magistrate 

Judge Pyle, Plaintiff has failed to exhaust his claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act 

(FTCA), and Plaintiff’s remaining claims against Defendant Decker are barred by the 

doctrine of prosecutorial immunity. No objection to the Report and Recommendation was 

filed by Plaintiff.2

 

 

1

 Defendant United States of America was substituted in place of Defendant Brian 

Decker, who is an Assistant United States Attorney. (Doc. 3.) 

2

 On February 23, 2016, shortly after Magistrate Judge Pyle issued his Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting a hearing and for clarification with regards to the status conference held by Magistrate Judge Pyle on February 11, 2016. (Doc. 53.) In his Motion, Plaintiff asserts that the “Claim Form 95,” which he claims he 

submitted to the Border Patrol and to the “District Attorney Administration,” is “acceptable” because it was filed within the correct time frame and with the appropriate administration. (Id. at 1-2.) Plaintiff does not provide any additional facts to support these arguments. Plaintiff similarly does not indicate which fact contained in the Report and Recommendation is incorrect, but rather states in conclusory fashion that his 2014 claim was timely. To the extent Plaintiff intends the arguments in his motion for hearing to be 

Case 4:15-cv-00247-JGZ-CRP Document 55 Filed 03/02/16 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 

 The Court has reviewed the record and concludes that Magistrate Judge Pyle’s 

recommendations are not clearly erroneous. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 

72; Johnson v. Zema Systems Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999); see also Conley 

v. Crabtree, 14 F.Supp.2d 1203, 1204 (D. Or. 1998). 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 

1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 52) is accepted and adopted; 

2. Defendant United States of America’s Motion to Dismiss (doc. 4) is 

GRANTED. Defendant United States of America, substituted for Defendant 

Brian Decker, is dismissed from the action. 

Dated this 2nd day of March, 2016. 

 construed as an objection to the findings of the Magistrate Judge, that objection fails, as the Court can discern no difference between the facts described by Plaintiff and those found by Magistrate Judge Pyle in his Report and Recommendation. (See doc. 52, p. 6.) Plaintiff also filed a Motion to Amend on February 23, 2016, in which Plaintiff again asserts that he filed paperwork with Border Patrol regarding “administrative remedies” in April or June of 2014. (Doc. 53.) The Court notes that in an attached affidavit, Plaintiff 

states that the 2014 paperwork was regarding the seizure of his vehicle, which is consistent with the findings of Magistrate Judge Pyle. (See doc. 52, p. 6; doc. 53, ex. A.). 

Case 4:15-cv-00247-JGZ-CRP Document 55 Filed 03/02/16 Page 2 of 2