Mitchell v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company

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

9 Patrick J Mitchell, et al., No. CV-22-00477-TUC-JAS (MAA) 10 Plaintiffs, ORDER v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, 13 Defendant.

15 Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation issued by United States Magistrate Judge Ambri that recommends denying Defendant’s motion to partially vacate appraisal award (Doc. 31). A review of the record reflects that the parties have not filed any timely objections to the Report and Recommendation and the time to file objections has expired. As such, the Court will not consider any objections or new evidence.

20 The Court has reviewed the record, including Defendant’s motion (Doc. 31), exhibits thereto (Doc. 32), Plaintiff’s response (Doc. 37), and Defendant’s reply (Doc. 41).

22 The Court reviewed Judge Ambri’s R&R (Doc. 42). The Court did not review Defendant’s objection (Doc. 44) to Judge Ambri’s R&R because it was not filed within the 14-day deadline. Defendant also withdrew that objection shortly after filing it. See Doc. 45.

25 The Court concludes that Magistrate Judge Ambri’s recommendations are not clearly erroneous. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72; Johnson v. Zema Systems Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999); Conley v. Crabtree, 14 F. Supp. 2d 1203, 1204 (D. Or. 1998).

1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: (1) Magistrate Judge Ambri’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 42) is accepted and adopted. (2) Defendant’s motion to partially vacate appraisal award (Doc. 31) is denied without 5|| prejudice.

6 Dated this 29th day of March, 2024.

A ashe.

Honorable James A. Soto 10 United States District Judge _2-