Martinez 241374 v. Ryan

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

9 Alfredo Bruce Martinez, No. CV-19-04449-PHX-DLR (JFM) 10 Plaintiff, ORDER v. Charles L Ryan, et al., 13 Defendants.

16 United States Magistrate Judge James F. Metcalf issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), and advised the parties that they had fourteen days to file objections to the R&R and that failure to file timely objections could be considered a waiver of the right to obtain review of the R&R. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72; United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). No party objected, which relieves the Court of its obligation to review the R&R. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121; Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). The Court nonetheless has reviewed the R&R and finds that it is well-taken.

24 IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Metcalf’s R&R (Doc. 124) is ACCEPTED as follows: 26 1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 116) is GRANTED.

27 2. Defendants Evans, Ryan, Hawley, Harkey, and Atwood are DISMISSED 28 WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

1 3. Counts 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 of the First Amended Complaint (Doc. 100) are 2 DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

3 4. Defendant Gomez is required to respond to the Eighth Amendment excessive 4 force claim in Count 2 and the First Amendment retaliation claim in Count 8 of 5 the First Amended Complaint.

6 5. Defendant Bernal is required to respond to the First Amendment access claim in 7 Count 7 of the First Amended Complaint 8 Dated this 4th day of January, 2021. ll {Z, 12 _- {UO 13 Upited States Dictic Judge _2-