Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_23-cv-02429/USCOURTS-azd-2_23-cv-02429-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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

Tomas Latham,

Plaintiff,

v. 

B. Gibson, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-23-02429-PHX-GMS (DMF)

ORDER 

Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of 

Magistrate Judge Deborah M. Fine (Doc. 30) regarding Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to 

Amend Complaint (Doc. 23) and Plaintiff’s lodged proposed First Amended Complaint 

(Doc. 24). The R&R recommends Plaintiff’s Motion be denied for failure to comply with 

LRCiv 15.1, for failure to comply with the Court’s previous orders and the new claims 

presented in Plaintiff’s lodged proposed First Amended Complaint (Doc. 24) are futile. 

The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had fourteen days to file objections to 

the R&R. (R&R at 13 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, 72; United States 

v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). No objections were filed.

Because the parties did not file objections, the Court need not review any of the 

Magistrate Judge’s determinations on dispositive matters. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 72(b); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003); 

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (“[Section 636(b)(1)] does not . . . require any 

Case 2:23-cv-02429-GMS-DMF Document 33 Filed 12/17/24 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

review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”). The absence of a 

timely objection also means that error may not be assigned on appeal to any defect in the 

rulings of the Magistrate Judge on any non-dispositive matters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) (“A 

party may serve and file objections to the order within 14 days after being served with a 

copy [of the magistrate’s order]. A party may not assign as error a defect in the order not 

timely objected to.”); Simpson v. Lear Astronics Corp., 77 F.3d 1170, 1174 (9th Cir. 1996); 

Phillips v. GMC, 289 F.3d 1117, 1120–21 (9th Cir. 2002).

Notwithstanding the absence of an objection, the Court has reviewed the R&R and 

finds that it is well taken. The Court will accept the R&R and deny Plaintiff’s Motion for 

Leave to Amend Complaint (Doc. 23; see also Doc. 24). 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Report and Recommendation of the 

Magistrate Judge (Doc. 30) is accepted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File 

Amended Complaint (Doc. 23).

Dated this 16th day of December, 2024.

Case 2:23-cv-02429-GMS-DMF Document 33 Filed 12/17/24 Page 2 of 2