Anthony Michael Martinez v. State of Arizona, et al.

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

9 Anthony Michael Martinez, No. CV-25-02838-PHX-JZB 10 Plaintiff, ORDER v. State of Arizona, et al., 13 Defendant.

15 This matter was assigned to Magistrate Judge John Z. Boyle. (Doc. 8). On September 23, 2025, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation with this Court. (Doc. 13).1 To date, no objections have been filed.

19 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: 21 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 22 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 23 to the full authority of the Magistrate Judge, 24 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 26 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.

28 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 Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991). Parties have fourteen days from the service 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 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. 12 DISCUSSION 13 Here, Plaintiff filed a Complaint alleging Defendant State of Arizona violated his rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to plausibly allege any facts that would create a reasonable inference of harm caused by Defendant.

16 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.

19 CONCLUSION 20 Accordingly, 21 IT IS ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. (Doc. 13).

23 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Application for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis as moot. (Doc. 2).

25 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Application for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. (Doc. 10).

27 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Plaintiff’s Proposed Amended Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. (Doc. 11).

1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of the Court to file Plaintiffs || Proposed Amended Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. (Doc. 11).

3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing Plaintiff's Complaint with leave to 4|| amend. (Doc. 1).

5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing Plaintiff to file an amended complaint on || or by Friday, December 19, 2025.

7 Dated this 12th day of November, 2025. ? Stephen M. McNamee 10 Senior United States District Judge -3-