Goff 186716 v. Coleman

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

9 Shawn Charles Goff, et al., No. CV-20-01557-PHX-DLR (JFM) 10 Plaintiffs, ORDER v. Anthony Coleman, et al., 13 Defendants.

16 Before the Court is United States Magistrate Judge James F. Metcalf’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 36) regarding Plaintiff’s third amendment complaint.

18 The R&R recommends that the Court deny Plaintiff’s requests for certification as a class and appointment of class counsel, that Plaintiffs Holguin and Benavidez be dismissed without prejudice, that Plaintiff’s claim for monetary relief be dismissed without prejudice, that Defendant Shinn in his individual capacity be dismissed without prejudice, and that Defendant Shinn be required to answer within 14 days of an order on the R&R. The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had 14 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 United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Neither party filed objections, 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) (“[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 2|| 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 accept the R&R in its entirety. 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 may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the || magistrate judge with instructions.’’).

9 IT IS ORDERED that the R&R (Doc. 36) is ACCEPTED. Plaintiff's requests for || certification as a class and appointment of class counsel are DENIED. Plaintiffs Holguin || and Benavidez are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiffs claim for 12|| monetary relief is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Defendant Shinn, in his 13} individual capacity only, is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Defendant Shinn shall answer the third amended complaint within 14 days of this order.

15 Dated this 18th day of August, 2021.

18 {Z, 19 _- Ch 20 Upited States Dictric Judge _2-