Opinion
CV-20-01823-PHX-SMB (CDB)
06-10-2021
Mark Anthony Acosta, Plaintiff, v. Unknown Gallego, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
Honorable Susan M. Brnovich United States District Judge
Plaintiff filed a motion (Doc. 33), which was construed as a motion seeking leave to amend his complaint. United States Magistrate Judge Camille Bibles has issued a report and recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the motion be denied. (Doc. 41). The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had fourteen days to file objections to the R&R. (R&R at 4-5) (citing Rule 72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure) No. objection has been filed, which relieves the Court of its obligation to review the R&R. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Nevertheless, the Court has reviewed the pleadings and agrees with the analysis of Magistrate Judge Bibles. The Court will accept and adopt the R&R.
IT IS ORDERED Plaintiffs motion (Doc. 33) is construed as a motion for leave to amend his complaint and is DENIED.