Baker v. United States Customs and Border Protection Service ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Keyon Shavaris Baker, No. CV-19-04512-PHX-DMF 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 United States Customs and Border Protection Service, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. (Doc. 16.) The matter 16 was referred to Magistrate Judge Deborah M. Fine for a Report and Recommendation. 17 (Doc. 17.) On September 3, 2019, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and 18 Recommendation, recommending the Court dismiss without prejudice and without leave 19 to amend Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. (Id.) On September 10, 2019, Plaintiff filed a 20 Motion for Reconsideration.1 (Doc. 18.) To date, no response has been filed. After 21 considering the Report and Recommendation and Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration, 22 the Court now issues the following ruling. 23 I. STANDARD OF REVIEW 24 The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 25 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also 26 Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991). The Court must review the legal 27 analysis in the Report and Recommendation de novo. See 28 U.S.C § 636(b)(1)(C). The 28 1 The Court will construe Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration as an Objection to the Report and Recommendation. 1 Court must review the factual analysis in the Report and Recommendation de novo for 2 those facts to which Objections are filed and for clear error for those facts to which no 3 Objections are filed. See id.; see also Turner v. Duncan; 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998) 4 (failure to file objections relieves the district court of conducting de novo review of the 5 magistrate judge’s factual findings). 6 II. DISCUSSION 7 On June 20, 2019, Plaintiff filed a pro se Complaint. The Magistrate Judge issued 8 an Order stating the Complaint did not state a claim upon which relief could be granted 9 pursuant to Rule 8 and allowed Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint. In the Order, the 10 Magistrate Judge included the Court’s website where Plaintiff could find free materials for 11 pro se litigants, including applicable rules. On August 5, 2019, Plaintiff filed an Amended 12 Complaint. The Amended Complaint was not substantially different from the original 13 Complaint, as it consisted of the original Complaint and exhibits. On September 3, 2019, 14 the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation, recommending Plaintiff’s 15 Amended Complaint be dismissed without prejudice and without leave to amend for failing 16 to comply with pleading requirements and failing to state a claim. 17 On September 10, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration. In the motion, 18 Plaintiff asked the Court to reconsider the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to dismiss 19 and attached Eades v. Thompson, 823 F.2d 1055 (7th Cir. 1987), in its entirety, to support 20 the motion. 21 Having reviewed the legal conclusions of the Report and Recommendation and the 22 Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge 23 adequately analyzed Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. Therefore, the Court hereby 24 incorporates and adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. 25 III. CONCLUSION 26 Accordingly, for the reasons set forth, 27 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the 28 Magistrate Judge. (Doc. 17.) 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration. (Doc. 18.) 3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing without prejudice and without leave to amend Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. (Doc. 16.) The Clerk of the Court shall enter 5 || judgment accordingly. 6 Dated this 24th day of October, 2019. 7 _ epi. EW □□□□□□ ‘ □□□□□□□□□□□□ 7 Honofable Stephen M. McNamee 10 Senior United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3-