Dwight Maurice Golden, III v. Valleywise Behavioral Health Center

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

9 Dwight Maurice Golden, III, No. CV-25-03972-PHX-MTM 10 Plaintiff, ORDER v. Valleywise Behavioral Health Center, 13 Defendant.

15 This matter was assigned to Magistrate Judge Michael T. Morrissey. (Doc. 2). On January 13, 2026, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) with this Court.1 (Doc. 9). The Magistrate Judge has recommended granting Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. 6) and dismissing this action without leave to amend. 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 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 DISCUSSION2 13 Having reviewed the R&R of the Magistrate Judge, and no Objections having been made by any party thereto, the Court hereby incorporates and adopts the R&R. 3 15 CONCLUSION 16 Accordingly, 17 IT IS ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. (Doc. 9).

19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. (Doc. 6).

2 The factual and procedural history of this case is set forth in the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 9).

23 3 Plaintiff has six related cases before the Court. See Golden v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, 2:25-cv-03890-SHD (D. A.Z.); see also Golden v. Maricopa Police Department, 2:25-cv-03918-JJT (D. A.Z. Nov. 26, 2025) (dismissed for failure to prosecute); see also Golden v. United Parcel Service, 2:25-cv-03963-JJT (D. A.Z. Jan. 6, 2026) (dismissed for failure to prosecute); see also Golden v. Community Bridges, 2:25- cv-03964-DMF (D .A.Z. Dec. 16, 2025) (dismissed for failure to prosecute); see also Golden v. Brad Miller Law et. al., 2:25-cv-03970-MTL (D. A.Z. Nov. 25, 2025) (dismissed for lack of jurisdiction); see also Golden v. Federal Communications Commission, 2:25- cv-03973-JJT (D. A.Z. Jan. 6, 2026) (dismissed for failure to prosecute).

1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing Plaintiff's Complaint without 2|| prejudice. (Doc. 1).

3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to terminate this action.

4 Dated this 3rd day of February, 2026.

Stephen M. McNamee 7 Senior United States District Judge -3-