Holguin 242753 v. Shinn

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

9 Elias MN Holguin, No. CV-20-01631-PHX-DLR (JFM) 10 Plaintiff, ORDER v. David Shinn, et al., 13 Defendants.

16 Before the Court is United States Magistrate Judge Metcalf’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Proposed Amended Complaint. (Doc. 88.) The Magistrate Judge 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 United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (failing to timely object to an R&R waives review of that R&R).

23 Neither party filed objections, which relieves the Court of its obligation to review the R&R. Still, the Court reviewed the R&R and finds it well-taken. The Court accepts 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).

28 IT IS ORDERED that the R&R (Doc. 88) is ACCEPTED.

1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's request to amend the schedule and 2|| Motion for Leave to File Proposed Amended Complaint (Doc. 80) are DENIED.

3 Dated this 24th day of August, 2022.

Ls Ue 8 States Dictric Judge _2-