Ambroise v. Martin

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

9 Ovard Aloise Ambroise, No. CV-24-03255-PHX-CDB 10 Plaintiff, ORDER v. Judith Ann Martin, 13 Defendant.

15 This matter was assigned to Magistrate Judge Camille D. Bibles. (Doc. 3). On December 5, 2024, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation with this Court.1 (Doc. 7). Plaintiff timely filed a Response to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation on December 17, 2024. Having reviewed the 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 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 Recommendation and Plaintiff’s Response thereto, the Court orders as follows.

2 STANDARD OF REVIEW 3 When reviewing a Magistrate Judge=s Report and Recommendation, this Court Ashall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made,@ and Amay 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); see also Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991). 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.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 10 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); see also Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Of course, de novo review of a R & R is only required when an objection is made to the R & R.”); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (“Neither the Constitution nor the [Federal Magistrates Act] requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct.”). 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 17 1155, 1159 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Miranda v. Anchondo, 684 F.3d 844, 848 (9th Cir. 2012)).

19 DISCUSSION 20 The Magistrate Judge has recommended that Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed without prejudice and without leave to amend due to Plaintiff’s failure to show that jurisdiction is proper. Because Plaintiff asserts only a breach of contract claim and attests that both Plaintiff and Defendant are residents of Arizona, the Magistrate Judge determined that Plaintiff has failed to show that diversity jurisdiction over this action is proper.

26 Plaintiff filed a Response to the Magistrate Judge’s Order on December 17, 2024.

27 However, Plaintiff’s Response is largely unresponsive to the deficiencies identified by the Magistrate Judge. In Plaintiff’s Response, Plaintiff describes immigrating to the United States and becoming involved in the community. (Doc. 8). Plaintiff then 2|| introduces the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and appears to argue that the 3|| Defendant, as Plaintiff's sponsor, breached a contract with “the Haitian and U.S. Government” by failing to support Plaintiff until Plaintiff secured citizenship. (Id.) 5 Plaintiff has raised no specific objection to any portion of the Report and || Recommendation and Plaintiff’s Response states no cognizable basis for federal question 7\|| or diversity jurisdiction over this matter. Because the Federal Magistrates Act does not || require review of “any issue that is not the subject of an objection,” the Court finds it 9|| appropriate to adopt the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation without further || review. Accordingly, the Court hereby incorporates and adopts the Magistrate Judge’s |} Report and Recommendation.

12 CONCLUSION 13 Accordingly, for the reasons set forth, 14 IT IS ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate || Judge. (Doc. 7).

16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint, (Doc. 1), || without prejudice and without leave to amend.

18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying as moot Plaintiff’s Application for Leave || to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. (Doc. 2).

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

21 Dated this 6th day of January, 2025.

33 Lgl ie one 74 ' Stephen M. McNamee Senior United States District Judge -3-