Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_11-cv-08153/USCOURTS-azd-3_11-cv-08153-2/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

Dante Shon Gordon, )

)

Plaintiff, ) No. CIV 11-8153-PHX-RCB(JFM)

)

vs. ) O R D E R

)

Charles L. Ryan, et al. )

)

Defendants. ) )

Presently before the court is a Report and Recommendation

(“R & R”) filed with this court by the Honorable James F.

Metcalf, United States Magistrate Judge), wherein he makes

four recommendations with respect to plaintiff’s First

Amended Complaint (“FAC”). First, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e), he recommends dismissal of the State of Arizona as

a defendant, as well as dismissal of plaintiff’s claims based

upon the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United

States Constitution. R & R (Doc. 16) at 7:13-15. Second,

the Magistrate Judge recommends staying service of

plaintiff’s original complaint. Id. at 7:16-17. Third, the

Magistrate Judge recommends “that Defendant Director Ryan be

Case 3:11-cv-08153-RCB Document 17 Filed 07/02/12 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

1 Calculating the time in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 6, including

allowing three extra days for service in accordance with subsection (d) of

that Rule, means that the parties had until June 11, 2012 by which to

timely file any objections. 

- 2 -

ordered to respond to Count I of the [FAC], and that

Defendants Deputy Warden Polland and Complex Administrator

Elliott be ordered to respond to Count II of the [FAC].” Id.

at 7:18-21. Fourth, he recommends “that service on

Defendants Director Ryan, Deputy Warden Polland, and Complex

Administrator Elliott proceed” as detailed in that R & R. 

See id. at 7:22-9:3.

On May 23, 2012, this R & R was filed and served upon the

parties. The R & R explicitly advised the parties that,

pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 72, they “shall have fourteen (14)

days from the date of service of a copy of this

recommendation within which to file specific written

objections with the Court.” Id. at 9:9-11. None of the

parties have filed objections to that R & R, and the fourteen

day time frame for so doing has passed.1

When reviewing an R & R issued by a Magistrate Judge,

this 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). “Of course, de novo review of

a R & R is only required when an objection is made to the 

R & R[.]” Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n. 13 (9th

Cir. 2005) (citing United States v. Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d

1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc)). That is because

“[n]either the Constitution nor the [Federal Magistrates Act]

requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and

Case 3:11-cv-08153-RCB Document 17 Filed 07/02/12 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 -

recommendations that the parties themselves accept as

correct.” Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121 (citations omitted).

Indeed, construing the Federal Magistrates Act, the Supreme

Court has found that that “statute does not on its face

require any review at all, by either the district court or

the court of appeals, of any issue that is not the subject of

an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149, 106 S.Ct.

466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985) (emphasis added).

Consistent with the foregoing authority, and no

objections having been filed by any party thereto, the court

has not engaged in a de novo review; and instead, the court

having “satisf[ied] itself that there is no clear error on

the face of the record[,]” hereby ACCEPTS, ADOPTS AND

INCORPORATES BY REFERENCE in its entirety, as if fully set

forth herein, the Magistrate Judge’s Report and

Recommendation (Doc. 16). See FED.R.CIV.P. 72, Advisory

Committee Notes, 1983 Addition. 

DATED this 2nd day of July, 2012.

Copies to counsel of record and plaintiff pro se

Case 3:11-cv-08153-RCB Document 17 Filed 07/02/12 Page 3 of 3