Caldwell-Parker v. Surprise Police Department

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

9 Jabril Caldwell-Parker, No. CV-21-01088-PHX-DWL (JZB) 10 Plaintiff, ORDER v. Surprise Police Department, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 On December 15, 2021, Magistrate Judge Boyle issued a report and recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that “Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Trinitee Sapp be DISMISSED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f)(3).” (Doc.

18 45 at 8-9.) The R&R further provided that “[t]he parties shall have fourteen (14) days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the Court.” (Id. at 9.)

21 Here, no such objections have been filed and the time to object has expired. Thus, the Court accepts Judge Boyle’s recommendation. See, e.g., Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985) (“It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.”); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (“[N]o review is required of a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation unless objections are filed.”). See also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 28 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[T]he district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.”).

2 Accordingly, 3 IT IS ORDERED that: 4 1. The R&R (Doc. 45) is accepted.

5 2. Plaintiffs claims against Defendant Trinitee Sapp are dismissed pursuant to 6 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f)(3).

7 Dated this 6th day of January, 2022.

9 Lm ee” 10 f t _o——— Dominic W. Lanza 11 United States District Judge _2-