King v. Corizon Incorporated ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Ernest DuWayne King, NO. CV-18-01187-PHX-MTL (CDB) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Corizon Incorporated, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 33) from the 16 Magistrate Judge recommending that the Motion to Amend the Complaint (Doc. 30) be 17 denied. No objections have been received. 18 Accordingly, the Court hereby accepts the Report and Recommendation. See 19 Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (finding that district courts are not required to 20 conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection”; see 21 also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) 22 (“statute makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings 23 and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise”) (emphasis in 24 original). 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 Based on the foregoing, 2 IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc 33) is || ACCEPTED. Petitioner’s Motion to Amend the Complaint (Doc. 30) is denied. 4 5 Dated this Ist day of October, 2019. 6 Michael T. Liburdi 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 _2-