King v. Corizon Incorporated

6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Ernest DuWayne King, NO. CV-18-01187-PHX-MTL (CDB) 10 Plaintiff, v. ORDER Corizon Incorporated, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 33) from the Magistrate Judge recommending that the Motion to Amend the Complaint (Doc. 30) be denied. No objections have been received.

18 Accordingly, the Court hereby accepts the Report and Recommendation. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (finding that district courts are not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection”; see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (“statute makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise”) (emphasis in original).

25 / / / / / / / / / / / / 1 Based on the foregoing, 2 IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc 33) is || ACCEPTED. Petitioner’s Motion to Amend the Complaint (Doc. 30) is denied.

5 Dated this Ist day of October, 2019.

Michael T. Liburdi 9 United States District Judge _2-