Sheppard v. Gila, County of ( 2022 )

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Nathanial Sheppard, No. CV-20-01935-PHX-DJH (MTM) 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 County of Gila, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 This matter is before the Court on Defendants Travis Todd and Gila County’s 16 Motion for Attorney’s Fees and the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) issued by 17 United States Magistrate Judge Michael T. Morrissey (Doc. 55). Therein, Magistrate Judge 18 recommends that Defendants’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees be denied. (Id.) 19 Judge Morrissey advised the parties that they had fourteen days to file objections. 20 (Doc. 55 at 7). The parties have not filed objections and the time to do so has expired. 21 Absent any objections, the Court is not required to review the findings and 22 recommendations in the R&R. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1989) (the relevant 23 provision of the Federal Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), “does not on its face 24 require any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection”). 25 The Court has nonetheless reviewed the R&R and agrees with its findings and 26 recommendations. The Court will, therefore, accept the R&R. See 28 U.S.C. 27 § 636(b)(1)(C) (“A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, 28 the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3) (same). 2 Accordingly, 3 IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Morrissey’s R&R (Doc. 55) is accepted 4|| and adopted as the order of this Court. As stated in the R&R, Defendants’ Motion for 5 || Attorneys’ Fees (Doc. 50) is denied. 6 Dated this 13th day of September, 2022. 7 8 Do we ? norable'Dian¢g/4. Hunfetewa 10 United States District Fudge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 _2-