United States District Court, D. Arizona
Honorable James A. Soto United States District Judge.
before the Court is a Report and Recommendation issued by
Magistrate Judge Maria S. Davila. (Doc. 25) In the Report and
Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Davila recommends that
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 13) be granted and
that this action be dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff
filed a timely objection.
7.2 (e)(3) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure for the
District of Arizona states “Unless otherwise permitted
by the Court, an objection to a Report and Recommendation
issued by a Magistrate Judge shall not exceed ten (10)
pages.” A review of the record does not show that
the Court permitted any extension of this page limit. Limits,
such as these, are intended to encourage litigants to use
their and the Court's resources efficiently. See In
re MacIntyre, 181 B.R. 420, 422 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1995),
aff'd, 77 F.3d 489 (9th Cir. 1996), and
aff'd, 79 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir. 1996) (ordering
monetary sanctions for attempts to circumvent page limits as
“page limits are important to maintain judicial
efficiency and ensure fairness to opposing parties”);
United States v. Sierra Pac. Indus., No. CIV
S-09-2445 KJM, 2012 WL 175071, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 20,
2012) (explaining how page limits help to preserve a
court's resources). In Plaintiff's objection,
Plaintiff correctly states, “[d]etailed background
facts are provided in the Complaint, the parties'
memoranda supporting and opposing dismissal, and in the
Magistrate's Report.” (Doc. 26 at 3.) Plaintiff
then devotes four-and-a-half pages to the background of the
claims and two-and-a-half pages on “The Proceedings to
Date.” Plaintiff even spends a paragraph speculating
on, and erroneously asserting, the motives of this case's
transfer to Judge Soto. For the sake of accuracy and clarity,
this matter was transferred to Judge Soto, not to the Tucson
Division as asserted in the objection. If this matter had
gone to trial it would have taken place in Phoenix. Further,
it was not transferred due to a conflict of interest or a
recusal; this is baseless speculation on the part of
Plaintiff, which only serves to waste valuable space in his
limited objection. Plaintiff also questions why this case was
referred to different magistrates once with Judge Soto; the
Court will explain. Magistrate Judge Bernardo P. Velasco
retired at the end of March 2019 and his cases were
transferred prior to his retirement. Sometime later,
Magistrate Judge Maria S. Davila was appointed as a full time
United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Arizona to
replace Magistrate Judge Velasco and eventually received
most, if not all, of his cases. (See GO 19-08).
does not present any meritorious argument for the Court to
consider, especially not in the first ten pages of the objection.
As the Court finds that the Report and Recommendation
appropriately resolved Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
(Doc. 13), the objections are denied.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
(1) Magistrate Judge Davila's Report and Recommendation
(Doc. 25) is accepted and adopted.
(2) Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 13) is granted.
(3) This case is dismissed without prejudice.
(4) The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment and close
 The Court reviews de novo the
objected-to portions of the Report and Recommendation. 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). The Court
reviews for clear error the unobjected-to portions of the
Report and Recommendation. See Johnson v. Zema Systems
Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999); see also
Conley v. Crabtree, 14 F.Supp.2d 1203, 1204 (D. Or.
 The Court notes that even in the
Northern District of Illinois, where Plaintiff's counsel
practices, objections to report and recommendations are
limited to 15 pages absent prior approval. LR 7.1.
 The Court acknowledges that Plaintiff
also moves for certification to the Arizona Supreme Court.
The local rules provide a limit of seventeen pages for
motions. LRCiv 7.2(e)(1). This motion or argument should have
been presented to the Magistrate. The Court will not provide
Plaintiff a second bite at the apple. See Friends of the
Wild Swan v. Weber, 955 F.Supp.2d 1191, 1194 (D. Mont.
2013), aff'd, 767 F.3d 936 (9th Cir. 2014).
There is no explanation as to why Plaintiff could not bring
all arguments before the Magistrate. Therefore, the ...