Hicks v. Cottonwood, 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
Wes Colby Hicks,
Plaintiff,
v.
City of Cottonwood, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-25-08025-PCT-SMB
ORDER
On February 9, 2026, Magistrate Judge John Z. Boyle issued a Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that this Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion for
Leave to File First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 24.) Judge Boyle notified the parties they
had fourteen (14) days to file any written objections to the proposed findings and
recommendation. (Doc. 24 at 8.) Neither party filed an objection, and the time to do so
has passed.
A district court is not required to review conduct “any issue that is not the subject
of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)
(“A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report
or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.”). “[T]he
court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to
accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee Notes 1983
Addition. A district judge may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings
or recommendations” of the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Case 3:25-cv-08025-SMB Document 29 Filed 06/18/26 Page 1 of 2

- 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 Court reviewed the R&R and the record. The Court finds no clear error and
agrees with the findings and recommendation.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 24) is adopted.
IT IS THUS ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File First
Amended Complaint (Doc. 21).
Dated this 18th day of June, 2026.
Case 3:25-cv-08025-SMB Document 29 Filed 06/18/26 Page 2 of 2