Leyva v. Coyote Auto Credit LLC

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

9 Dainier Perez Leyva, No. CV-25-02588-PHX-DMF 10 Plaintiff, ORDER v. Coyote Auto Credit LLC, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 This matter was assigned to Magistrate Judge Deborah M. Fine. (Doc. 5). On August 25, 2025, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation with this Court.1 (Doc.

17 19). The Magistrate Judge has recommended that the parties’ stipulation to dismiss with prejudice as to Defendants Northern Arizona Wholesale LLC and Melissa Scharr, (Doc.

19 14), be granted. To date, no objections have been filed.

20 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 1 STANDARD OF REVIEW 2 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 □□□□□□ □□□ Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991). Parties have fourteen days from the service 5|| 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 7\| 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 9|| 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. 12 DISCUSSION 13 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.

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

20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED approving the Stipulation of Dismissal of || Defendants Northern Arizona Wholesale LLC and Melissa A. Schaar Only with Prejudice.

221} (Doc. 14).

23 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing this action with prejudice as to Northern Arizona Wholesale LLC and Melissa A. Schaar only, each to bear their own || attorney fees and costs.

26 Dated this 24th day of September, 2025.

27 Lgl ie. ad 28 Stephen M. McNamee Senior United States District Judge _2-