Russell 094433 v. Ryan

1 WO 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Marcus David Russell, ) No. CV-19-05012-SPL (CDB) ) ) 10 Plaintiff, ) ORDER vs. ) ) ) Charles L. Ryan, et al., ) ) 13 Defendants. ) ) 14 ) 15 On August 22, 2019, Plaintiff filed a pro se complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1), as well as a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2). In Count One, Plaintiff alleged that Defendants Scott and Alvarez burdened the exercise of his religion by refusing to provide him with a kosher diet. In Count Two, Plaintiff alleged he was fired from his job as a cook when the Defendants learned of his intention to file a lawsuit. In this Court’s October 24, 2019 Order (Doc. 6), the Court ordered Defendants Scott and Alvarez to answer Count One of the Complaint and dismissed the remaining claim and Defendants without prejudice.

23 On March 17, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Request for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint (Doc. 16). On April 16, 2020, the Honorable Camille D. Bibles, United States Magistrate Judge, issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 19), recommending that the Court grant the motion insofar as it seeks to add a RLUIPA claim for prospective injunctive relief against Defendant Shinn acting in his official capacity.

28 The R&R further recommends that the motion be denied in all other respects. Judge Bibles | advised the parties that they had fourteen (14) days to file objections to the R&R and that 2| failure to file timely objections could be considered a waiver of the right to obtain review 3| of the R&R. See also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, 72; United States v. Reyna- 4| Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (th Cir. 2003).

5 No timely objection has been filed, which relieves the Court of its obligation to 6} review the R&R. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121; Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 7| (1985) (‘[Section 636(b)(1)] does not... require any review at all... of any issue that is | not the subject of an objection.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge must | determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.”). The Court has nonetheless reviewed the R&R and finds that it is well-taken.

The Court will thus adopt the R&R in full. 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’); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge 14| may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or | return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.”). Accordingly, 16 IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc.

19) is accepted and adopted by the Court.

18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Request for Leave to File a First | Amended Complaint (Doc. 16) is granted insofar as Plaintiff seeks to add a RLUIPA claim | for prospective injunctive relief against Defendant Shinn acting in his official capacity.

21 | The motion is denied in all other respects.

22 Dated this 26th day of May, 2020.

25 □□□