Jones v. Gateway Chevrolet Incorporated

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

9 Scott Jones, No. CV-23-02323-PHX-DMF 10 Plaintiff, ORDER v. Gateway Chevrolet Incorporated, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 This matter was assigned to Magistrate Judge Deborah M. Fine. (Doc. 3). On January 22, 2024, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation with this Court.1 (Doc. 10). The Magistrate Judge has recommended that this matter be dismissed without prejudice due to Plaintiff’s failure to pay the filing fee or file an amended 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 22 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) 23 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 25 Recommendation for the Chief United States District Judge or designee.

26 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED designating the following District Court Judges to review and, if deemed suitable, to sign the order of dismissal on 27 my behalf: 28 Phoenix/Prescott: Senior United States District Judge Stephen M.

McNamee Application to Proceed Without Prepaying Fees or Costs. To date, no objections have || been filed.

3 STANDARD OF REVIEW 4 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 □□□□□□ □□□ 6|| 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 9|| object to a 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 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. 14 DISCUSSION 15 Having reviewed the 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 Report and Recommendation.

18 CONCLUSION 19 Accordingly, for the reasons set forth, 20 IT IS ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate □□ Judge. (Doc. 10).

22 IT IS 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.

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

26 Dated this 5th day of February, 2024.

27 Lips Ai), 28 Hdhorable Stephen M. McNamee Senior United States District Judge _2-