Life Storage LP v. Burress ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Life Storage LP, No. CV-22-00007-PHX-JZB 10 Petitioner, ORDER 11 v. 12 James Burress, 13 Respondent. 14 15 This matter was assigned to Magistrate Judge John Z. Boyle. (Doc. 4). On July 25, 16 2022, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation with this Court.1 (Doc. 17 11). 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 □□□□□□ □□ 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 adopts the Magistrate Judgells Report and Recommendation. 14 CONCLUSION 15 Accordingly, for the reasons set forth, 16 IT IS ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate □□ Judge. (Doc. 11). 18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Petitioner Life Storage LP’s unopposed 19|| Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award. (Doc. 1). 20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED confirming Arbitrator’s October 20, 2021 Final Arbitration Award. (Doc. 1-2, Ex. 2, at 21-22). 22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment 23 || in favor of Petitioner and against Respondent James Burress. 24 Dated this 24th day of August, 2022. 25 26 27 — Lil nora Hdhorable Stephen M. McNamee 28 Senior United States District Judge _2-