United States District Court for the District of Arizona, 2025

Bailey v. Arizona Board of Regents

Bailey v. Arizona Board of Regents
United States District Court for the District of Arizona · Decided August 25, 2025
Bailey v. Arizona Board of Regents

Trial Court Opinion

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

9 Keiron Bailey, No. CV-23-00557-TUC-AMM (LCK) 10 Plaintiff, ORDER v. Arizona Board of Regents, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 On May 15, 2025, Magistrate Judge Lynnette C. Kimmins issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending this Court deny pro se Plaintiff Keiron Bailey’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction to Prevent Unauthorized Filings by Disqualified Defense Counsel (Doc. 37) and Motion for Preliminary Injunction to Prevent Spoliation and Preserve Evidence (Doc. 38). (Doc. 65.) Judge Kimmins notified the parties they had fourteen (14) days to file any written objections to the proposed findings and recommendation. (Id. at 4.) Neither party filed an objection, and the time to do so has now passed.

23 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 25 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. A district judge may “accept, reject, or 2|| modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations” of the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

4 The Court has reviewed Judge Kimmins’s R&R, the parties’ briefs, and the record.

5 || The Court finds no clear error and agrees with the findings and recommendation.

6 Accordingly, 7 IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED. (Doc.

65.)

9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction || to Prevent Unauthorized Filings by Disqualified Defense Counsel is DENIED. (Doc. 37.)

11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction || to Prevent Spoliation and Preserve Evidence is DENIED. (Doc. 38.)

13 Dated this 25th day of August, 2025.

15 Daw 2. uct 16 ~ Honorable Angela M. Martinez 7 United States District Judge _2-

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.