Toro v. Fell

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

9 Preston Guillermo Toro, No. CV-24-00397-TUC-AMM (MSA) 10 Plaintiff, ORDER v. Howard Fell, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 On March 4, 2025, Magistrate Judge Maria S. Aguilera issued a Report and Recommendation recommending this Court grant Defendant Pima County Superior Court Judge Howard Fell’s Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. 28.) Judge Aguilera also recommended the Court deny Plaintiff Preston Toro’s Motion to Stay Criminal Case and dismiss Defendant Adult Criminal Defender Katherine Voll sua sponte with leave for Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint. (Id. at 1.)

21 Judge Aguilera notified the parties they had fourteen (14) days to file any written objections to the proposed findings and recommendation. (Id. at 6.) Neither party filed an objection, and the time to do so has now passed.

24 A district court is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); see also 28 26 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (“A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.”). “[T]he court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on □□ the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), || Advisory Committee Notes 1983 Addition.

3 The Court has reviewed the Complaint (Doc. 1), Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 13), 4|| Plaintiffs Response (Doc. 21), Defendant Judge Fell’s Reply (Doc. 24), Plaintiffs □□ Motion to Stay Criminal Case (Doc. 26), and the R&R (Doc. 28). The Court agrees with || Judge Aguilera’s conclusions and finds there is no clear error in her recommendation.

Accordingly, 8 IT IS ORDERED: 9 (1) The Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED. (Doc. 28.)

10 (2) Defendant Judge Fell’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. (Doc. 13.) Defendant 11 Judge Fell is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

12 (3) Plaintiff's Motion to Stay Criminal Case is DENIED. (Doc. 26.)

13 (4) Defendant Voll is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff may file an 14 Amended Complaint as to his claims against Defendant Voll only no later than 15 April 16, 2025. If Plaintiff files an Amended Complaint, this matter shall remain 16 referred to Judge Aguilera for all pretrial proceedings and report and 17 recommendation, in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), Fed. 18 R. Civ. P. 72, and LRCiv. 72.1 and 72.2. If Plaintiff fails to file an Amended 19 Complaint on or before April 16, 2025, the Clerk of Court shall, without further 20 notice, enter a judgment dismissing this case with prejudice.

21 Dated this 21st day of March, 2025.

23 Daw uct 24 ~ Honorable Angela M. Martinez 5 United States District Judge _2-