Acosta v. Gallego

6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 9 Mark Anthony Acosta, No. CV-20-01823-PHX-SMB (CDB) 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 Vv.

Unknown Gallego, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 Plaintiff filed a motion (Doc. 33), which was construed as a motion seeking leave || toamend his complaint. United States Magistrate Judge Camille Bibles has issued a report || and recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the motion be denied. (Doc. 41). The || Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had fourteen days to file objections to the □□ R&R. (R&R at 4-5) (citing Rule 72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure) No objection has || been filed, which relieves the Court of its obligation to review the R&R. See 28 U.S.C. § 91 || 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); United □□ States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Nevertheless, the Court has || reviewed the pleadings and agrees with the analysis of Magistrate Judge Bibles. The Court || will accept and adopt the R&R. 25 IT IS ORDERED Plaintiff's motion (Doc. 33) is construed as a motion for leave || to amend his complaint and is DENIED.

Dated this 10th day of June, 2021.

28 —— . □□ s > fonorable Susan M, Brnovich