Murray v. Hobbs

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

9 Johnny C Murray, No. CV-25-01791-PHX-CDB 10 Plaintiff, ORDER v. Katie Hobbs, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 This matter was assigned to Magistrate Judge Camille D. Bibles. On June 5, 2025, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation with this Court.1 (Doc. 5). The Magistrate Judge recommends that Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed with prejudice for failure to allege sufficient facts indicating the named Defendants violated Plaintiff’s civil rights, and that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma be denied as moot. To 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 |} date, no objections have been filed.

2 I. 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 service 6|| 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 || Magistrate Judge’s recommendation relieves the Court of conducting de novo review of 9|| 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 Il. 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 16|| adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation.

17 Hr. CONCLUSION 18 Accordingly, 19 IT IS ORDERED dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint, with Prejudice. (Doc. 1).

20 IT IS FURTHER ORDRED denying Plaintiff’s Motion as moot. (Doc. 2).

21 Dated this 10th day of July, 2025.

23 Legge. Ais.) at 24 Stephen M. McNamee 35 Senior United States District Judge _2-