Burkel v. Crager ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Thomas L Burkel, No. CV-21-02048-PHX-ESW 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 Mike Crager, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 This matter was assigned to Magistrate Judge Eileen S. Willett for a Report and 16 Recommendation. (Doc. 4). On February 17, 2022, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and 17 Recommendation with this Court.1 (Doc. 8). To date, no objections have been filed. 18 STANDARD OF REVIEW 19 The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 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 21 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. 26 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: 28 Phoenix/Prescott: Senior United States District Judge Stephen M. McNamee 1 recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see Baxter v. 2 Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991). Parties have fourteen days from the service 3 of a copy of the Magistrate’s recommendation within which to file specific written 4 objections to the Court. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, 72. Failure to object to a 5 Magistrate Judge’s recommendation relieves the Court of conducting de novo review of 6 the Magistrate Judge’s factual findings and waives all objections to those findings on 7 appeal. See Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998). A failure to object to a 8 Magistrate Judge’s conclusion “is a factor to be weighed in considering the propriety of 9 finding waiver of an issue on appeal.” Id. 10 DISCUSSION 11 Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and no 12 Objections having been made by any party thereto, the Court hereby incorporates and 13 adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. The Court also finds that 14 Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges conclusions that are not supported by any factual allegations. 15 See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (“[A] complaint must contain sufficient 16 factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” 17 (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). Thus, dismissal is also 18 appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 19 CONCLUSION 20 Accordingly, for the reasons set forth, 21 IT IS ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate 22 Judge. (Doc. 8). 23 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing without prejudice Plaintiff’s 24 Complaint. (Doc. 1). 25 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiffs Application to Proceed in 26 District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs. (Doc. 2). 27 /// 28 /// 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of the Court to terminate this matter. 3 Dated this 11th day of March, 2022. 4 5 6 aphid Z.. - Bir arvvnae Hdhorable Stephen M. McNamee 7 Senior United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3-