Markham v. Pima County, CV 16-134-TUC-JAS (JR). (2018)
Court: District Court, D. Arizona
Number: infdco20180413966
Visitors: 20
Filed: Apr. 11, 2018
Latest Update: Apr. 11, 2018
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, Magistrate Judge Rateau recommends denying Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend his complaint. As the Court finds that the Report and Recommendation properly resolved the motion, Plaintiff's objections are denied. 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: (1) Magistrate Judge Rateau's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 107
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, Magistrate Judge Rateau recommends denying Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend his complaint. As the Court finds that the Report and Recommendation properly resolved the motion, Plaintiff's objections are denied. 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: (1) Magistrate Judge Rateau's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 107)..
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, Magistrate Judge Rateau recommends denying Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend his complaint. As the Court finds that the Report and Recommendation properly resolved the motion, Plaintiff's objections are denied.1
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
(1) Magistrate Judge Rateau's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 107) is accepted and adopted.
(2) Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend his complaint (Doc. 102) is denied.
(3) Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a reply (Doc. 112) is denied.
(4) This case is referred back to Magistrate Judge Rateau for all pretrial proceedings and report and recommendation in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), Fed.R.Civ.P. 72, and LRCiv 72.1, 72.2, and 72.3 of the Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona.
FootNotes
1. The Court reviews de novo the objected-to portions of the Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). 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
