Castro v. Food City

6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Leonso Castro, No. CV-22-00464-PHX-JFM 10 Plaintiff, ORDER v. Food City, 13 Defendant.

15 This matter was assigned to Magistrate Judge James F. Metcalf. (Doc. 3). On June 22, 2022, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation with this Court.1 (Doc.

17 16). The Plaintiff filed a response on July 14, 2022. (Doc. 17).

18 STANDARD OF REVIEW 19 Parties have fourteen days from the service of a copy of a Magistrate’s report and 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 23 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) 24 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 26 Recommendation for the Chief United States District Judge or designee.

27 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED designating the following District Court Judges to review and, if deemed suitable, to sign the order of dismissal on 28 my behalf: Phoenix/Prescott: Senior United States District Judge Stephen M. McNamee recommendation within which to file specific written objections to the Court. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, 72. The Court must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which” a party objects. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3); United States v. Reyna- Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Further, this Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3). At the same time, however, the relevant provision of the Federal Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), “does not on its face require any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”

10 Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1989); see also Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005). Likewise, it is well-settled that “failure to object to a magistrate judge’s factual findings waives the right to challenge those findings.” Bastidas v. Chappell, 791 F.3d 1155, 1159 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Miranda v. Anchondo, 684 F.3d 844, 848 (9th Cir. 2012)).

15 DISCUSSION 16 Plaintiff’s response was not timely. It was filed twenty-two days after the Report and Recommendation—well past the fourteen-day deadline. Additionally, in the response, Plaintiff states that he was subject to discrimination and retaliation and asks for damages, but he does not include specific objections to the Report and Recommendation. Thus, a de novo review is not warranted.

21 Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, the Court hereby incorporates and adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation.

23 CONCLUSION 24 Accordingly, for the reasons set forth, 25 IT IS ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. (Doc. 60).

27 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing without leave to amend Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint. (Doc. 14).

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

3 Dated this 29th day of August, 2022.

6 aphid Z.. - Bir arvvnae Hdhorable Stephen M. McNamee 7 Senior United States District Judge -3-