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

Danny Lee Monts,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Shaun G Anderson, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-18-00754-PHX-DJH (CDB)

ORDER 

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

United States Magistrate Judge Camille D. Bibles on April 1, 2019. (Doc. 30). The R&R 

recommends that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint (“Motion”) 

be denied. Judge Bibles advised the parties that they had fourteen days to file objections 

to the R&R. Plaintiff filed his objection on April 8, 2019. (Doc. 34). Judge Bibles 

explained the background and status of this case in the R&R and the Court need not repeat 

that information here. Having reviewed the R&R de novo in light of the Plaintiff’s timely 

objection thereto, the Court finds that the R&R should be accepted. 

I. STANDARD OF REVIEW

The district judge “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the 

report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge must 

determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly 

objected to.”); U.S. v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) . The Court 
- 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

reviews for clear error the unobjected-to portions of the R&R. See Johnson v. Zema 

Systems Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999); see also Conley v. Crabtree, 14 F. Supp.

2d 1203, 1204 (D. Or. 1998). The judge “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in 

part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1)(C); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3).

II. DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard

Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a plaintiff should 

be given leave to amend his complaint when justice so requires. See, e.g., United States v. 

Hougham, 364 U.S. 310, 316 (1960); Howey v. United States, 481 F.2d 1187, 1190 (9th 

Cir. 1973). Granting a plaintiff leave to amend “is subject to the qualification that the 

amendment not cause undue prejudice to the defendant, is not sought in bad faith, and is 

not futile.” Thornton v. McClatchy Newspapers, Inc., 261 F.3d 789, 799 (9th Cir. 2001) 

(citation omitted). Granting or denying leave to amend is a decision committed to the 

Court’s discretion. See Mirmehdi v. United States, 689 F.3d 975, 985 (9th Cir. 2012).

B. Plaintiff’s Objections to Judge Bibles’ R&R

At issue is Plaintiff’s request to amend his Complaint to reinstate Counts One, Two

against Defendant Payne, and Three through Seven. Pursuant to the Court’s original 

Screening Order, the only remaining claim of Plaintiff’s Complaint was Count II against

Defendants Griffiths, Anderson, Del Castillo, and Washington for excessive use of force, 

in their individual capacities. (Doc. 11 at 22-3). In his proposed Amended Complaint, 

Plaintiff alleges that he corrected the deficiencies raised by this Court’s Screening Order. 

Judge Bibles, and this Court, disagree. 

Having considered Judge Bibles’ R&R in light of Plaintiff’s Objections (Doc. 34), 

the Court finds that the Judge Bibles adequately addressed all of Plaintiff’s arguments and 

correctly determined that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint 

(Doc. 22) should be denied. 

Accordingly, 
- 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

IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Bibles’s R&R (Doc. 30) is ACCEPTED

and ADOPTED as the Order of this Court. Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File an 

Amended Complaint (Doc. 22) is DENIED. 

Dated this 30th day of August, 2019.

Honorable Diane J. Humetewa

United States District Judge