Proctor v. Quintashia Maria Proctor Trust et al

Filing 13

ORDER Adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. (Doc. #12 ). FURTHER ORDERED dismissing without prejudice this action.FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of the Court to terminate this matter. Signed by Senior Judge Stephen M McNamee on 9/19/22. (MAP)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Quintashia Maria Proctor, No. CV-22-01254-PHX-JFM Plaintiff, 10 ORDER 11 v. 12 Quintashia Maria Proctor Trust, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 This matter was assigned to Magistrate Judge James F. Metcalf. (Doc. 3). On 16 August 30, 2022, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation with this 17 Court.1 (Doc. 12). To date, no objections have been filed. STANDARD OF REVIEW 18 19 1 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 This case is assigned to a Magistrate Judge. However, not all parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge. Thus, the matter is before this Court pursuant to General Order 21-25, which states in relevant part: When a United States Magistrate Judge to whom a civil action has been assigned pursuant to Local Rule 3.7(a)(1) considers dismissal to be appropriate but lacks the jurisdiction to do so under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) due to incomplete status of election by the parties to consent or not consent to the full authority of the Magistrate Judge, IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge will prepare a Report and Recommendation for the Chief United States District Judge or designee. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED designating the following District Court Judges to review and, if deemed suitable, to sign the order of dismissal on my behalf: Phoenix/Prescott: Senior United States District Judge Stephen M. McNamee 1 The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 2 recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see Baxter v. 3 Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991). Parties have fourteen days from the 4 service of a copy of the Magistrate’s recommendation within which to file specific 5 written objections to the Court. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, 72. Failure to 6 object to a Magistrate Judge’s recommendation relieves the Court of conducting de novo 7 review of the Magistrate Judge’s factual findings and waives all objections to those 8 findings on appeal. See Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998). A failure to 9 object to a Magistrate Judge’s conclusion “is a factor to be weighed in considering the 10 propriety of finding waiver of an issue on appeal.” Id. 11 DISCUSSION 12 Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and no 13 Objections having been made by any party thereto, the Court hereby incorporates and 14 adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. 15 CONCLUSION 16 Accordingly, for the reasons set forth, 17 IT IS ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate 18 Judge. (Doc. 12). 19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing without prejudice this action. 20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of the Court to terminate this 21 22 matter. Dated this 19th day of September, 2022. 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?