Brown v. Alexander

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

9 Justin Matthew Brown, No. CV-19-05048-PHX-JAT (CDB) 10 Plaintiff, ORDER v. Unknown Alexander, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s motion for leave to amend the complaint.

16 (Doc. 13). Magistrate Judge Bibles issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the motion to amend be denied. (Doc. 19). Specifically, Judge Bibles found that Plaintiff sought “leave to amend his complaint solely for the purpose of seeking an increase in the amount of punitive damages sought and . . . failed to file a proposed amended complaint on the requisite form and in the requisite manner.” (Id. at 3). Neither party has filed objections to the R&R. 22 This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). “[T]he district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (“Following Reyna-Tapia, this Court concludes that de novo review of factual and legal issues is required if objections are made, ‘but not otherwise.’”) (emphasis omitted).

1 Because there are no objections, the Court will accept the R&R. Accordingly, 2 IT IS ORDERED that the R&R (Doc. 19) is ACCEPTED.

3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to amend the complaint (Doc. 13) is DENIED.

5 Dated this 5th day of May, 2020.

7 ' James A. Teilborg 9 Senior United States District Judge _2-