Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_04-cv-00034/USCOURTS-azd-4_04-cv-00034-0/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

WO

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Allahyar Razaimalek,

Plaintiff,

v.

City of Tucson, a body politic; and DM Federal

Credit Union, 

Defendants. _______________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV 04-34 TUC DCB

O R D E R

On January 9, 2006, the Honorable Glenda E. Edmonds, 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 in part as to Count

3 because Plaintiff cannot prove the City has a policy, practice or custom that resulted in

violations of his civil rights. She recommended denying summary judgment on Defendant's

state law claims of false arrest and false imprisonment. Alternatively, she recommended

remanding the state law claims to the state court for adjudication because the law is not well

developed at the state level so this Court should defer to the state courts in the interest of

judicial economy, convenience, fairness and comity.

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 such 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. §

Case 4:04-cv-00034-DCB Document 85 Filed 02/03/06 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 -

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 as the opinion of the

Court. For the reasons stated in the Recommendation, the Court grants summary judgment for

the City of Tucson on Plaintiffs' civil rights claim and remands the state law claims to the state

court for adjudication.

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation [Doc. # 84] is adopted as the

opinion of the Court. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Motion for Summary Judgment (document 68) is

GRANTED IN PART as to Count 3 and DENIED IN PART as to Counts 1 and 2.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is REMANDED to the Superior Court

of Arizona, Pima County. 

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

accordingly.

DATED this 3rd day of February, 2006.

cc: Clerk, Superior Court/cjs 2/3/06

Case 4:04-cv-00034-DCB Document 85 Filed 02/03/06 Page 2 of 2