Medrano v. Salt River Pima Police Department

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

9 Jordani Medrano, No. CV-25-00166-PHX-JFM 10 Plaintiff, ORDER v. Salt River Pima Police Department, 13 Defendant.

15 This matter was assigned to Magistrate Judge James F. Metcalf. (Doc. 3). On January 30, 2025, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation with this Court.1 (Doc. 7). The Magistrate Judge has recommended that Plaintiff’s Amended Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees, (Doc. 6), be denied and that 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 Plaintiff be ordered to pay the filing fee. To date, no objections have been filed.

2 STANDARD OF REVIEW 3 The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 4|| recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see Baxter _v.

5|| Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991). Parties have fourteen days from the 6|| service of a copy of the Magistrate’s recommendation within which to file specific 7\|| written objections to the Court. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, 72. Failure to || object to a Magistrate Judge’s recommendation relieves the Court of conducting de novo 9|| 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. 13 DISCUSSION 14 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.

17 CONCLUSION 18 Accordingly, for the reasons set forth, 19 IT IS ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. (Doc. 7).

21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Amended Application to || Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees. (Doc. 6).

23 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff must pay the filing fee on or before March 7, 2025. Should Plaintiff fail to pay the filing fee by this deadline, this matter will || be dismissed without prejudice.

26 Dated this 21st day of February, 2025.

27 Ligh Bi 28 Stephen M. McNamee Senior United States District Judge _2-