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 

Oscar Nester, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-15-01700-PHX-SMM

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to Prepare 

His Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint (Doc. 10); and Plaintiff’s 

Motion for Leave of the Court to File a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) (Doc. 11). 

Magistrate Judge Deborah M. Fine performed a screen on Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). On January 21, 2016, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and 

Recommendation with this Court . (Doc. 15.) To date, no objections have been filed. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

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

recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see Baxter v. 

Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991). Parties have fourteen days from the 

service of a copy of the Magistrate’s recommendation within which to file specific 

written objections to the Court. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, 72. Failure to 

object to a Magistrate Judge’s recommendation relieves the Court of conducting de novo

review of the Magistrate Judge’s factual findings and waives all objections to those 

Case 2:15-cv-01700-SMM-DMF Document 17 Filed 02/10/16 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 

findings on appeal. See Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998). A failure 

to object to a Magistrate Judge’s conclusion “is a factor to be weighed in considering the 

propriety of finding waiver of an issue on appeal.” Id. 

DISCUSSION

 Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and no 

Objections having been made by any party thereto, the Court hereby incorporates and 

adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. 

CONCLUSION

 Accordingly, for the reasons set forth, 

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court adopts the Report and 

Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. (Doc. 15.) 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to 

Prepare His Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint as a Matter of Course 

(Doc. 10) be denied. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave of the Court to 

File a First Amended Complaint (Doc. 11) be granted, and that Plaintiff be allowed to 

file his FAC. Plaintiff shall file his FAC by February 26, 2016. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Charles Ryan and Corizon Health 

shall answer Counts I and II of the FAC, but not Count V as it is duplicative. Defendant 

Dr. Arlene McKamey shall answer Count III of the FAC, but not Count V as it is 

duplicative. Defendant Dr. Michael Hegmann shall answer Count IV of the FAC, but not 

Count V as it is duplicative. Defendants Dr. Mulhen and Kerry Byrd shall answer Count 

V of the FAC. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Wexford Health Sources, Inc. 

/// 

/// 

Case 2:15-cv-01700-SMM-DMF Document 17 Filed 02/10/16 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 

and Assistant FHA Howley be dismissed. 

 Dated this 9th day of February, 2016. 

Honorable Stephen M. McNamee

Senior United States District Judge

Case 2:15-cv-01700-SMM-DMF Document 17 Filed 02/10/16 Page 3 of 3