Brown
v.
Maricopa Cnty. Sheriff's Office

This case is not covered by Casetext's citator
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONASep 5, 2018
No. CV-17-01182-PHX-DJH (ESW) (D. Ariz. Sep. 5, 2018)

No. CV-17-01182-PHX-DJH (ESW)

09-05-2018

McKinley Truein Brown, III, Plaintiff, v. Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, et al., Defendants.


REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

TO THE HONORABLE DIANE J. HUMETEWA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE:

The parties were scheduled to attend a settlement conference on August 29, 2018 before a Judge Pro Tem in the Superior Court of Arizona. (Doc. 40 at 1). On September 4, 2018, the parties filed a "Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice" (Doc. 43). The Stipulation states that pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a), Plaintiff and Defendant agree to dismiss the matter with prejudice, with each party paying his own attorney fees and costs. The parties also have lodged a proposed Order dismissing "Plaintiff's Complaint and all associated claims with prejudice." (Doc. 43-1).

For good cause shown,

IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Court grant the parties' "Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice" (Doc. 43).

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the Court dismiss this matter with prejudice and order the parties to pay their own attorney fees and costs.

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the Court deny as moot the following six pending motions filed by Plaintiff: (i) "Request for a Joinder of Party Debra Lowery" (Doc. 31); (ii) "Rule 18 and Rule 20 Request for Joinder and/or Amend Complaint" (Doc. 32); (iii) "Motion for an Order Compelling Discovery" (Doc. 33); (iv) "Request to Serve a Supplemental Pleading" (Doc. 34); (v) "Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint" (Doc. 35); and (vi) "Motion for Extension of Time" (Doc. 36).

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the Court deny as moot Defendant's "Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to Serve Expert Reports and Cross Motion to Extend Other Deadlines" (Doc. 37).

This Report and Recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1) should not be filed until entry of the District Court's judgment. The parties shall have fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of this Report and Recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, 72. Thereafter, the parties have fourteen days within which to file a response to the objections. Failure to file timely objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report and Recommendation by the District Court without further review. Failure to file timely objections to any factual determinations of the Magistrate Judge may be considered a waiver of a party's right to appellate review of the findings of fact in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003); Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1146-47 (9th Cir. 2007).

Dated this 5th day of September, 2018.

/s/_________


Eileen S. Willett


United States Magistrate Judge