Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_07-cv-00309/USCOURTS-azd-4_07-cv-00309-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

Cheryl Wells, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Hon. Jan E. Kearney, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-309-TUC-FRZ (JM)

ORDER

Pending before the Court are two Report and Recommendations which were issued

on December 2, 2009. See Doc. #’s 121, 122. United States Magistrate Judge Jacqueline

Marshall issued a Report and Recommendation (Doc. #121) recommending the dismissal of

two defendants without prejudice as Plaintiff failed to effect service. In addition, United

States Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Marshall issued a Report and Recommendation (Doc.

#122) recommending sanctions in the amount $15,000 against Plaintiff.

The Report and Recommendations indicated that any party could file written

objections within ten days after being served with copies of the Report and

Recommendations. Copies of both Report and Recommendations (Doc. #’s 121, 122) were

mailed to Plaintiff on December 2, 2009. The parties have not filed any objections to the

Report and Recommendations. As such, the Court will not consider any objections or new

evidence. See generally United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir.

Case 4:07-cv-00309-FRZ-JR Document 124 Filed 01/13/10 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 -

2003)(en banc)(failure to timely file objections to any factual or legal determination of the

Magistrate Judge may be considered a waiver of the party’s right to de novo consideration

of the issues).

The Court has reviewed the entire record and concludes that Magistrate Judge

Marshall’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); Conley v.

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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

(1) United States Magistrate Judge Marshall's Report and Recommendations (Doc. #’s 121,

122) are ACCEPTED AND ADOPTED.

(2) Defendants Cia Wells and Alan Belauskas are dismissed without prejudice from this case.

(3) The Court imposes $15,000.00 in sanctions against Plaintiff; each of the three parties

requesting sanctions (i.e. Defendants Phillip Schwartz, John Knox Village, and Broad and

Cassel) is awarded $5,000 from the $15,000 sanction.

(4) The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly.

(5) As this case was originally assigned to Magistrate Judge Marshall, and the referral

pertains to all pretrial proceedings, the referral to Magistrate Judge Marshall is still in effect;

this case is referred back to Magistrate Judge Marshall to the extent pretrial proceedings

remain in this case.

DATED this 13th day of January, 2010.

Case 4:07-cv-00309-FRZ-JR Document 124 Filed 01/13/10 Page 2 of 2