Garrow v. Tucson Clips LLC

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

9 Mary S Garrow, No. CV-22-00243-TUC-RM (LAB) 10 Plaintiff, ORDER v. Tucson Clips LLC, 13 Defendant.

15 On January 9, 2023, Magistrate Judge Leslie A. Bowman issued a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 23) recommending that this Court deny Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 9). No objections to the Report and Recommendation were filed.

18 A district judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions” of a magistrate judge’s “report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The advisory committee’s notes to Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure state that, “[w]hen no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation” of a magistrate judge. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note to 1983 addition. See also Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 25 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999) (“If no objection or only partial objection is made, the district court judge reviews those unobjected portions for clear error.”); Prior v. Ryan, CV 10-225-TUC-RCC, 2012 WL 1344286, at *1 (D. Ariz. Apr. 18, 2012) (reviewing for clear error unobjected-to portions of Report and Recommendation).

1 The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Leslie A. Bowman’s Report and || Recommendation, the parties’ briefs, and the record. The Court finds no error in || Magistrate Judge Leslie A. Bowman’s Report and Recommendation.

4 Accordingly, 5 IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 23) is accepted || and adopted in full.

7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 9) is denied.

8 Dated this 27" day of February, 2023. ll 12 “L fag - Honorable Rosthhary Mgfquez 13 United States District Jiidge _2-