Davis v. Culda, CV-19-01390-PHX-SMB (CDB). (2020)
Court: District Court, D. Arizona
Number: infdco20200214968
Visitors: 8
Filed: Feb. 12, 2020
Latest Update: Feb. 12, 2020
Summary: ORDER SUSAN M. BRNOVICH , District Judge . Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of Magistrate Judge Camille D. Bibles (Doc. 12) regarding plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend First Amended Complaint (Doc. 10). The R&R recommends that the Motion to Amend be denied. The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had fourteen days to file objections to the R&R. (R&R at 10) (citing Rule 72(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; Rule 8(b), Rules Governing Section
Summary: ORDER SUSAN M. BRNOVICH , District Judge . Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of Magistrate Judge Camille D. Bibles (Doc. 12) regarding plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend First Amended Complaint (Doc. 10). The R&R recommends that the Motion to Amend be denied. The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had fourteen days to file objections to the R&R. (R&R at 10) (citing Rule 72(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; Rule 8(b), Rules Governing Section ..
More
ORDER
SUSAN M. BRNOVICH, District Judge.
Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of Magistrate Judge Camille D. Bibles (Doc. 12) regarding plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend First Amended Complaint (Doc. 10). The R&R recommends that the Motion to Amend be denied. The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had fourteen days to file objections to the R&R. (R&R at 10) (citing Rule 72(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; Rule 8(b), Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings). Plaintiff filed his objection on February 10, 20120 (Doc. 15).
The Court has considered the objections and reviewed the Report and Recommendation de novo. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that the court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objections are made). The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge's determinations, accepts the recommended decision within the meaning of Rule 72(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., and overrules Plaintiff's objections. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that the district court "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate").
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 12) is accepted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend First Amended Complaint (Doc. 10).
Source: Leagle
