Opinion
CV-20-00507-TUC-SHR (DTF)
05-11-2022
Augustine F Romero, Plaintiff, v. Tucson Unified School District, Defendant.
ORDER
HONORABLE SCOTT H. RASH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On April 22, 2022, Magistrate Judge D. Thomas Ferraro issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), recommending the Court deny Defendant's Partial Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint (“Motion to Dismiss”) (Doc. 54.) The Magistrate Judge informed the parties they had fourteen days to file objections to the R&R and an additional fourteen days to respond. (Id. at 10.) No objections have been filed and neither party has requested additional time to do so.
If neither party objects to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, the District Court is not required to review the magistrate judge's decision under any specified standard of review. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (district court only needs to review magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made). However, the statute for review of a magistrate judge's recommendation “does not preclude further review by the district judge, sua sponte or at the request of a party, under a de novo or any other standard.” Thomas, 474 U.S. At 154.
In this case, the deadline for filing objections has passed. As noted above, no objections have been filed, and neither party has requested additional time to do so. Consequently, the Court may adopt the R&R on that basis alone. See Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F.Supp.2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (district court declined to review the magistrate judge's report because no objections were filed). Nonetheless, the Court has reviewed the Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 44), Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 46), Plaintiff's Response (Doc. 51), Defendant's Reply (Doc. 53), and Judge Ferraro's R&R. (Doc. 54.) The Court accepts and adopts the portion of the R&R denying the Motion to Dismiss but clarifies a fact in the R&R: when Plaintiff applied for TUSD positions in Spring and Summer of 2018, at least one of the hired individuals was Hispanic/Mexican or Yaqui. (Compare Doc. 44 ¶¶ 97-99 (Plaintiff alleges one of the positions he applied for was filled by a Hispanic male) with Doc. 54 at 3 (“None of the hired individuals were Hispanic/Mexican or Yaqui.”).)
IT IS ORDERED Magistrate Judge Ferraro's Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in part (Doc. 54).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Defendant must file an answer to the Second Amended Complaint no later than Wednesday, June 1, 2022.