Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_04-cv-00680/USCOURTS-azd-4_04-cv-00680-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Neil McHugh,

Plaintiff,

v.

Town of Marana, a municipal corporation, and

Marana Town Council, duly elected officials of

the Town of Marana, 

Defendants, _______________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV 04-680 TUC DCB

O R D E R

On January 27, 2006, the Honorable Bernardo P. Velasco, United States Magistrate

Judge, filed a Report and Recommendation ("Recommendation") in this action. The

Recommendation advised the Court to grant the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment

(document 14).

The Magistrate Judge recommended that this Court find that the Plaintiff failed to raise

a material issue of fact to support his claim of entitlement or his claim that Defendant acted

impartially. The Magistrate Judge recommended that this Court find the takings claim

premature because Plaintiff failed to bring an inverse condemnation action against the

Defendants. The Magistrate Judge correctly found that Plaintiff failed to bring his claim under

42 U.S.C. § 1983 and erroneously brought his takings claim directly under the Fifth

Amendment to the United States Constitution. Lastly, the Magistrate Judge correctly concluded

that Plaintiff has no cause of action under the substantive due process clause.

The Court follows the Magistrate Judge's recommendation, adopts the findings and

opinions in the Recommendation, and grants Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.

Case 4:04-cv-00680-DCB-BPV Document 28 Filed 03/13/06 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

- 2 -

The parties were sent copies of the Recommendation and instructed that, pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b), they had 10 days to file written objections to the Recommendation. See also,

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) (party objecting to the recommended disposition has ten

(10) days to file specific, written objections). To date, no objections have been filed.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), this Court makes a de novo determination as to those

portions of the Report and Recommendation to which there are objections. 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1)(C) ("A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the

report or specified proposed findings and recommendations to which objection is made.") To

the extent that no objection has been made, arguments to the contrary have been waived.

McCall v. Andrus, 628 F.2d 1185, 1187 (9th Cir. 1980) (failure to object to Magistrate's report

waives right to do so on appeal); see also, Advisory Committee Notes to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72

(citing Campbell v. United States Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974) (when no

timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face

of the record in order to accept the recommendation).

The Court considers the Recommendation to be thorough and well-reasoned; it is neither

clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617-618 (9th

Cir. 1989). The Recommendation shall therefore be accepted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1). The Court adopts the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. For the reasons

stated in the Recommendation, the Court grants Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (document 27) is adopted as

the opinion of the Court. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Summary Judgment(document 14)

is GRANTED.

/////

/////

/////

Case 4:04-cv-00680-DCB-BPV Document 28 Filed 03/13/06 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 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall enter Judgment

accordingly.

DATED this 13th day of March, 2006.

Case 4:04-cv-00680-DCB-BPV Document 28 Filed 03/13/06 Page 3 of 3