Markham v. Pima County, CV 16-134-TUC-JAS (JR). (2019)
Court: District Court, D. Arizona
Number: infdco20190311742
Visitors: 14
Filed: Mar. 07, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 07, 2019
Summary: ORDER JAMES A. SOTO , District Judge . Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation issued by Magistrate Judge Rateau. In the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 129), signed on 11/7/18, Magistrate Judge Rateau recommends granting Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Doc. 123). In an Order also signed on 11/7/18 (Doc. 130), Magistrate Judge Rateau denied Plaintiff's request for another extension of time to oppose the motion for summary judgment. The Court finds that Magistrate Ju
Summary: ORDER JAMES A. SOTO , District Judge . Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation issued by Magistrate Judge Rateau. In the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 129), signed on 11/7/18, Magistrate Judge Rateau recommends granting Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Doc. 123). In an Order also signed on 11/7/18 (Doc. 130), Magistrate Judge Rateau denied Plaintiff's request for another extension of time to oppose the motion for summary judgment. The Court finds that Magistrate Jud..
More
ORDER
JAMES A. SOTO, District Judge.
Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation issued by Magistrate Judge Rateau. In the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 129), signed on 11/7/18, Magistrate Judge Rateau recommends granting Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Doc. 123). In an Order also signed on 11/7/18 (Doc. 130), Magistrate Judge Rateau denied Plaintiff's request for another extension of time to oppose the motion for summary judgment. The Court finds that Magistrate Judge Rateau properly denied Plaintiff's additional requests for more time, the Court also denies Plaintiff's requests for additional time, and denies Plaintiff's untimely filed objections. Defendants' motion to strike (Doc. 145) is granted inasmuch as the Court finds that Plaintiff's filings at issue are untimely and are not properly before the Court. In the alternative, the Court has also reviewed Plaintiff's objections, and nevertheless finds that Magistrate Judge Rateau's Report and Recommendation and Orders were proper, and Plaintiff's objections are therefore denied.1
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
(1) Magistrate Judge Rateau's Report and Recommendation and Orders are accepted and adopted, and Plaintiff's objections are denied.
(2) Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Doc. 123) and motion to strike (Doc. 145) are granted, and all remaining motions are denied.
(3) The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in favor of Defendants and close the file in this case.
FootNotes
1. The Court reviews de novo the objected-to portions of the Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636; Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. The Court reviews for clear error the unobjected-to portions of the Report and Recommendation. 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).
Source: Leagle