Jayme Lee v. San Diego Police Department, et al.

1 WO 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8 Jayme Lee, No. CV-25-04143-PHX-JZB 9 Plaintiff, ORDER v. San Diego Police Department, et al., 12 Defendants.

14 This matter was assigned to Magistrate Judge John Z. Boyle. (Doc. 4). On February 6, 2026, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation with this Court.1 (Doc. 11). To date, no objections have been filed. The Magistrate Judge recommends that this matter be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) because Plaintiff did not pay the statutorily mandated filing fees. (Id.) 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 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 □□□□□□ □□□ 4] 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 7\| 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 9|| 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 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 not || complied with the Court’s order to pay the statutorily required filing fees, therefore, the || Court dismisses this action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to prosecute.

18 CONCLUSION 19 Accordingly, for the reasons set forth, 20 IT IS ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate || Judge. (Doc. 11).

22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing Plaintiff Jayme Lee’s Complaint (Doc.

23 || 1) and this action without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

24 IT FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to enter judgment || accordingly and terminate this case.

26 Dated this 23rd day of February, 2026.

8 Stephen M. McNamee Senior United States District Judge -2-