Ministry of Kings and Queens of Moorish National Ministry Trust v. Bridgecrest...

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

9 Ministry of Kings and Queens of Moorish No. CV-25-01819-PHX-SMM (ESW) National Ministry Trust, 10 ORDER Plaintiff, v. Bridgecrest Acceptance Corporation, Defendant.

15 This matter was assigned to Magistrate Judge Eileen S. Willett. (Doc. 3). On October 22, 2025, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation with this Court.1 (Doc. 40). The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court deny Plaintiff’s Rule 60(b) Motion to Reopen Case Under Plaintiff’s Individual Capacity. (Id.) To date, no 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 || 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. Moreover, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate any extraordinary circumstances warranting the Court to reopen this || case and cannot represent the Trust pro se. See BLOM Bank SAL v. Honickman, 605 U.S. 204, 210 (2025).

20 CONCLUSION 21 Accordingly, 22 IT IS ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate || Judge. (Doc. 40).

24 Dated this 6th day of November, 2025.

Stephen M. McNamee Senior United States District Judge _2-