Taylor v. Infusion Software Incorporated

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

9 Georgette Taylor, et al., No. CV-22-00820-PHX-JFM 10 Plaintiffs, ORDER v. Infusion Software Incorporated, 13 Defendant.

15 This matter was assigned to Magistrate Judge James F. Metcalf. (Doc. 3). On August 23, 2022, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation with this Court.1 (Doc.

17 12). The Defendant objected, (Doc. 13), and the Magistrate Judge filed an Amended Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 14). To date, no objections have been filed to the Amended Report and Recommendation.

20 1 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: 22 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 23 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 24 to the full authority of the Magistrate Judge, 25 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 27 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 STANDARD OF REVIEW 2 The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or || recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see □□□□□□ □□□ Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991). Parties have fourteen days from the service of a copy of the Magistrate’s recommendation within which to file specific written || objections to the Court. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, 72. Failure to object to a 7\| Magistrate Judge’s recommendation relieves the Court of conducting de novo review of || the Magistrate Judge’s factual findings and waives all objections to those findings on 9|| appeal. See Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998). A failure to object to a Magistrate Judge’s conclusion “is a factor to be weighed in considering the propriety of || finding waiver of an issue on appeal.” Id. 12 DISCUSSION 13 Having reviewed the Amended Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and no Objections having been made by any party thereto, the Court hereby || incorporates and adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Amended Report and Recommendation.

16 CONCLUSION 17 Accordingly, for the reasons set forth, 18 IT IS ORDERED adopting the Amended Report and Recommendation of the 19|| Magistrate Judge. (Doc. 14).

20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting the parties’ Joint Motion to Dismiss. (Doc.

11).

22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing with prejudice this action, each party || to bear their own costs and attorney fees.

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

26 Dated this 13th day of September, 2022.

28 H orable Stephen M. McNamee Senior United States District Judge _2-