Swartwood 282233 v. Trans Union LLC

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

9 Michael Edward Swartwood, No. CV-24-02055-PHX-DWL 10 Plaintiff, ORDER v. Trans Union LLC, 13 Defendant.

15 This is a civil action that was removed from state court. (Doc. 1.) On November 26, 2024, the parties filed a notice of settlement. (Doc. 14.) That same day, the Court issued an order requiring the parties to file a stipulation of dismissal within 60 days and warned that the action would be dismissed with prejudice on January 30, 2025 if no stipulation or joint status report was filed. (Doc. 15.) On February 12, 2025, after the parties failed to heed those deadlines, the Court issued an order requiring defense counsel to “either show cause no later than February 25, 2025 why this matter should not be dismissed with prejudice or file a Stipulation to Dismiss with Prejudice or Joint Status Report no later than February 25, 2025.” (Doc. 18.) Although defense counsel did not comply with that deadline, defense counsel filed a belated response on March 13, 2025 requesting that “the Court dismiss this action with prejudice and grant such other and further relief as the Court deems appropriate.” (Doc. 19.) Accordingly, on April 15, 2025, Magistrate Judge Willett issued a report and recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that “the District Judge dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint with prejudice, each party to bear his/its || own attorneys’ fees and costs.” (Doc. 20.) The R&R further provided that “[t]he parties 2|| shall have fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of this Report and || Recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the Court... .

4|| Failure to file timely objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation □□ may result in the acceptance of the Report and Recommendation by the District Court 6|| without further review.” (d.)

7 Here, no such objections have been filed and the 14-day deadline has expired. Thus, || the Court accepts the R&R’s recommendation. See, e.g., Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985) (“It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when 11} neither party objects to those findings.”’); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (‘[NJo review is required of a magistrate judge’s report and 13} recommendation unless objections are filed.””). See also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[T]he district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.”’).

16 Accordingly, 17 IT IS ORDERED that: 18 1. The R&R (Doc. 20) is adopted.

19 2. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed with prejudice, each party to bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs.

21 3. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and terminate this action.

22 Dated this 6th day of May, 2025.

24 Am ee 25 i CC —— Dominic W. Lanza 26 United States District Judge -2-