Mayfield 288368 v. Mohave, County of

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

9 Anthony Kyle Mayfield, No. CV-24-08116-PCT-SHD (JZB) 10 Plaintiff, ORDER v. Unknown Flores, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) from the Magistrate Judge recommending that Defendant Officer Flores answer Count one of the First Amended Complaint, that Counts Two and Three be dismissed, and that Defendants Sharpe and Mohave County Sheriff be dismissed. (Doc. 13.) Plaintiff filed his Complaint on June 12, 2024. (Doc. 1.) The Complaint was served on Defendant Flores on November 25, 2024. (Doc. 11). Plaintiff amended his Complaint on October 24, 2024, (Doc. 8).

21 Defendant Flores has not been served the First Amended Complaint.

22 On May 22, 2025, Magistrate Judge John Z. Boyle issued the pending R&R. (Doc.

23 13.) No objections to the R&R have been filed and the deadline to file has expired. The R&R advised Plaintiff: 25 The parties shall have 14 days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), 6(b) and 72.

27 Thereafter, the parties have 14 days within which to file a response to the objections. Failure to timely file objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report and 1 Recommendation by the district court without further review. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003).

3 (Doc. 13 at 3.)

4 This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). As the R&R indicated, it is “clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F.Supp.2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (“Following Reyna- Tapia, this Court concludes that de novo review of factual and legal issues is required if objections are made, ‘but not otherwise.’”); Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Ctr. v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 589 F.3d 1027, 1032 (9th Cir. 2009) (the district court “must review de novo the portions of the [Magistrate Judge’s] recommendations to which the parties object.”). District courts are 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) (emphasis added); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (“[T]he court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which objection is made.”).

18 No objections having been received, the Court will adopt the recommendations of the magistrate judge and order that the Clerk of Court send a copy of the First Amended Complaint to Defendant Flores. Accordingly, 21 IT IS ORDERED that the R&R (Doc. 13) is adopted.

22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Sharpe and Mohave County Sheriff are dismissed from this matter, with prejudice.

24 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Counts Two and Three of the First Amended Complaint are dismissed, with prejudice.

26 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall send a copy of this Order and the First Amended Complaint to Defendant Flores at the Mohave County Adult Detention Center, 501 W Highway 66, Kingman, Arizona, 86401.

1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Flores must answer Count One of the First Amended Complaint or otherwise respond by appropriate motion by no later than 3|| Friday, July 25, 2025.

4 Dated this 26th day of June, 2025.

6 / , ° H le Sharad H. Desai 10 United States District Judge _3-