Donahue v. Phoenix, City of et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Cochran F. Donahue,
Plaintiff,
v.
City of Phoenix, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-25-00754-PHX-GMS (CDB)
ORDER
Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R” of Magistrate
Judge Camille D. Bibles (Doc. 29) regarding Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (Doc.
24).
The R&R clearly sets forth the deficiencies in Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint
for failing to allege specific factual allegations that Defendants Page, Hinz, and Murphy or
any Doe defendant, used excessive force against Plaintiff. (Doc. 29 at 7). Further,
Plaintiff’s Monell claims against the City of Phoenix do not include additional, sufficient,
specific facts to cure the deficiencies noted in the Court’s August 6, 2025 Order (Doc. 9)
to adequately state a cognizable Monell claim for relief against the City of Phoenix. (Doc.
29 at 7). Nor does Plaintiff adequately state a factual basis for his claim that any action
taken by any named defendant was in violation of his First Amendment rights. (Id.)
Additionally, Plaintiff fails to adequately state a claim that any named defendant
violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights. (Id.)
Case 2:25-cv-00754-GMS-CDB Document 41 Filed 03/16/26 Page 1 of 3

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The R&R recommends the Court dismiss the First Amended Complaint at Doc. 24.
The Magistrate Judge advised the parties they had fourteen days to file objections to the
R&R. (R&R at 9 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b)(2)). No objections
were filed.
Because the parties did not file objections, the Court need not review any of the
Magistrate Judge’s determinations on dispositive matters. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72(b); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003);
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (“[Section 636(b)(1)] does not . . . require any
review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”). The absence of a
timely objection also means that error may not be assigned on appeal to any defect in the
rulings of the Magistrate Judge on any non-dispositive matters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) (“A
party may serve and file objections to the order within 14 days after being served with a
copy [of the magistrate’s order]. A party may not assign as error a defect in the order not
timely objected to.”); Simpson v. Lear Astronics Corp., 77 F.3d 1170, 1174 (9th Cir. 1996);
Phillips v. GMC, 289 F.3d 1117, 1120-21 (9th Cir. 2002).
Notwithstanding the absence of an objection, the Court has reviewed the R&R and
finds that it is well taken. The Court will accept the R&R and dismiss the First Amended
Complaint (Doc. 24). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that the district court “may accept,
reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the
magistrate”).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED the Report and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge (Doc. 29) is accepted
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint
(Doc. 24).
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
Case 2:25-cv-00754-GMS-CDB Document 41 Filed 03/16/26 Page 2 of 3

- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Plaintiff may not proceed on the First Amended
Complaint and the Complaint (Doc. 1) is the operative complaint.1
Dated this 16th day of March, 2026.
1 The magistrate judge ordered Peru be substituted for Perez with regard to Count Three
in the Complaint. (Doc. 35).
Case 2:25-cv-00754-GMS-CDB Document 41 Filed 03/16/26 Page 3 of 3