Hollinquest v. JPMorgan Chase ( 2022 )

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Sharletha Hollinquest, NO. CV-22-01253-PHX-SMM-JFM 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 JPMorgan Chase, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Complaint. (Doc. 1). The matter was referred 15 to Magistrate Judge James F. Metcalf for a Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 3). On July 16 29, 2022, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation with this Court.1 (Doc. 17 6). To date, no objections have been filed. 18 /// 19 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 STANDARD OF REVIEW 2 The Court Amay accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 3 recommendations made by the magistrate.@ 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(C); see Baxter v. 4 Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991). Parties have fourteen days from the service 5 of a copy of the Magistrate=s recommendation within which to file specific written 6 objections to the Court. 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, 72. Failure to object to 7 a Magistrate Judge=s recommendation relieves the Court of conducting de novo review of 8 the Magistrate Judge=s factual findings and waives all objections to those findings on 9 appeal. See Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998). A failure to object to a 10 Magistrate Judge=s conclusion Ais a factor to be weighed in considering the propriety of 11 finding waiver of an issue on appeal.@ Id. 12 DISCUSSION 13 Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and no 14 Objections having been made by any party thereto, the Court hereby incorporates and 15 adopts the Magistrate Judge=s Report and Recommendation. 16 CONCLUSION 17 Accordingly, for the reasons set forth, 18 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court adopts the Report and 19 Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. (Doc. 6). 20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the docket be amended to reflect Defendant 21 Unknown Party’s name as Defendant Unclaimed Property CA. 22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing without prejudice Defendants 23 CashApp and JP Morgan Chase. 24 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Unclaimed Property CA file an 25 answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint. 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff has until January 16, 2023 to complete 2|| service on Defendant Unclaimed Property CA. 3 Dated this 5th day of December, 2022. 4 5 Laphee Z.. - Br aera Hdhorable Stephen M. McNamee 6 Senior United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3-