Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_16-cv-00260/USCOURTS-azd-4_16-cv-00260-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Wynona Mixon
Plaintiff
United States Bureau of Prisons
Defendant

Document Text:

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 

Wynona Mixon, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

United States Bureau of Prisons, 

Defendant. 

No. CV-16-00260-TUC-DCB (BGM)

ORDER 

 This matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Bruce G. Macdonald on June 6, 

2016. Pursuant to the Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, District of 

Arizona (Local Rules), Rule (Civil) 72.1(a), Magistrate Judge Macdonald issued a Report 

and Recommendation (R&R) on January 27, 2017. (R&R (Doc. 21)). He recommends 

granting the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW 

 The duties of the district court, when reviewing an R&R of a Magistrate Judge, are 

set forth in Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

The district court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 

recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1). When the parties object to an R&R, “‘[a] judge of the [district] court shall 

make a de novo determination of those portions of the [R&R] to which objection is 

made.’” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)). 

When no objections are filed, the district court does not need to review the R&R de novo. 

Case 4:16-cv-00260-DCB-BGM Document 22 Filed 02/21/17 Page 1 of 3
- 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 

Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n. 13 (9th Cir.2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia,

328 F.3d 1114, 1121-22 (9th Cir.2003) (en banc). 

 The parties were sent copies of the R&R and instructed they had 14 days to file 

written objections. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), see also, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 72 

(party objecting to the recommended disposition has fourteen (14) days to file specific, 

written objections). The Plaintiff has not filed an objection. 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

 The Honorable Bruce G. Macdonald considered whether Plaintiff states a due 

process claim and whether she may seek a declaratory judgment that she is entitled to 

have her legal representation in CV 13-295 TUC JGZ paid for by the Bureau of Prison 

(BOP), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 516-517, 28 C.F.R. § 50.15. The Magistrate Judge 

agreed with the Government that the Plaintiff has no due process right to be provided 

individual-capacity representation because Section 50.15 is permissive. (R&R (Doc. 21) 

at 5-6.) Therefore, the Plaintiff may not seek injunctive relief to reverse the 

Government’s discretionary decision to deny her request for representation in the civil 

damage suit brought against her and other BOP employees by a prisoner arising out of 

events, including an alleged rape and sexual assault, that transpired at BOP’s Tucson 

Federal Penitentiary. The BOP declined to accept her defense, but is defending the other 

BOP employees. The Magistrate Judge agreed with the Government that her claims 

brought under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) must be dismissed because the 

APA does not apply when “‘agency action is committed to agency discretion by law.’” 

(R&R (Doc. 21) at 7-9 (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(2)). And, the Magistrate Judge 

rejected Plaintiff’s equal protection claim because she fails to assert any facts suggesting 

she is a member of “‘a protected or suspect class or otherwise suffers the unequal 

burdening of a fundamental right.’” Id. at 9. 

 The Magistrate Judge recommends dismissal without leave to amend. He found, 

and the Court agrees, that there is no set of facts that could cure the deficiencies found in 

Case 4:16-cv-00260-DCB-BGM Document 22 Filed 02/21/17 Page 2 of 3
- 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 

the Plaintiff’s Complaint. The Court notes that the Plaintiff has failed to assert otherwise 

by objection to the R&R. 

 There being no Objection, review has been waived, but the Court nevertheless 

reviews at a minimum, de novo, the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions of law. Robbins v. 

Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 

(9th Cir. 1998) (conclusions of law by a magistrate judge reviewed de novo); Martinez v. 

Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 1991) (failure to object standing alone will not 

ordinarily waive question of law, but is a factor in considering the propriety of finding 

waiver)). The Court finds the R&R to be thorough and well-reasoned, without any clear 

error in law or fact. See United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617-618 (9th Cir. 1989) 

(United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617-618 (9th Cir. 1989) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1)(A) as providing for the district court to reconsider matters delegated to 

magistrate judge when there is clear error or recommendation is contrary to law). The 

Court accepts and adopts the R&R as the opinion of the Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1). For the reasons stated in the R&R, the Court grants the Defendant’s Motion to 

Dismiss. 

Accordingly, 

 IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 21) is adopted as 

the opinion of the Court. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 12) is 

GRANTED. 

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

Judgment accordingly. 

 Dated this 21st day of February, 2017. 

Honorable David C. Bury United States District Judge

Case 4:16-cv-00260-DCB-BGM Document 22 Filed 02/21/17 Page 3 of 3