Jones v. Gateway Chevrolet Incorporated et al

Filing 11

ORDER - Adopting the Report and Recommendation of the MagistrateJudge. (Doc. 10 ). FURTHER ORDERED dismissing without prejudice this matter for Plaintiff's failure to comply with the Court's orders that Plaintiff pay the filing fee or file an amended Application to Proceed Without Prepaying Fees or Costs. FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to terminate this case. Signed by Senior Judge Stephen M McNamee on 2/5/24. (MAP)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Scott Jones,

No. CV-23-02323-PHX-DMF
Plaintiff,

10
11

v.

12

Gateway Chevrolet Incorporated, et al.,

13

Defendants.

ORDER

14
15

This matter was assigned to Magistrate Judge Deborah M. Fine. (Doc. 3). On

16

January 22, 2024, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation with this

17

Court.1 (Doc. 10). The Magistrate Judge has recommended that this matter be dismissed

18

without prejudice due to Plaintiff’s failure to pay the filing fee or file an amended

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

Application to Proceed Without Prepaying Fees or Costs. To date, no objections have

2

been filed.

3

STANDARD OF REVIEW

4

The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

5

recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see Baxter v.

6

Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991). Parties have fourteen days from the

7

service of a copy of the Magistrate’s recommendation within which to file specific

8

written objections to the Court. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, 72. Failure to

9

object to a Magistrate Judge’s recommendation relieves the Court of conducting de novo

10

review of the Magistrate Judge’s factual findings and waives all objections to those

11

findings on appeal. See Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998). A failure to

12

object to a Magistrate Judge’s conclusion “is a factor to be weighed in considering the

13

propriety of finding waiver of an issue on appeal.” Id.

14

DISCUSSION

15

Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and no

16

Objections having been made by any party thereto, the Court hereby incorporates and

17

adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation.

18

CONCLUSION

19

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth,

20

IT IS ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate

21

Judge. (Doc. 10).

22

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing without prejudice this matter for

23

Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s orders that Plaintiff pay the filing fee or file

24

an amended Application to Proceed Without Prepaying Fees or Costs.

25

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to terminate this case.

26

Dated this 5th day of February, 2024.

27
28

-2-