Craig Arthur Iams v. FBI, et al.

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

9 Craig Arthur Iams, No. CV-25-04422-PHX-CDB 10 Plaintiff, ORDER v. FBI, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 This matter was assigned to Magistrate Judge Camille D. Bibles. (Doc. 6). On January 27, 2026, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) with this Court.1 (Doc. 12). The Magistrate Judge recommends dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1) and denying Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 3), Motion to Allow Electronic Filing (Doc. 4), and Motion for Service by U.S. Marshals (Doc.

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 5) as moot. To date, no objections have been filed.

2 STANDARD OF REVIEW 3 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. 13 DISCUSSION2 14 Having reviewed the R&R of the Magistrate Judge, and no Objections having been made by any party thereto, the Court hereby incorporates and modifies the R&R to dismiss the Complaint without prejudice.3 17 CONCLUSION 18 Accordingly, 19 IT IS ORDERED modifying the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. (Doc. 12).

21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint without prejudice and without leave to amend. (Doc. 1).

23 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In 2 The factual and procedural history of this case is set forth in the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 12).

26 3 “[A] § 1915(d) dismissal is not a dismissal on the merits, but rather an exercise of the court’s discretion under the in forma pauperis statute. . . .It could, however, have a res judicata effect on frivolousness determinations for future in forma pauperis petitions.”

28 Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 34 (1992).

1 || Forma Pauperis as moot. (Doc. 3).

2 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiffs Motion to Allow Electronic || Filing by a Party Appearing Without an Attorney as moot. (Doc. 4).

4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiff's Motion for Service by U.S. || Marshals as moot. (Doc. 5).

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

7 Dated this 10th day of March, 2026.

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