Dawkins v. Department of Economic Security ( 2023 )

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Elkino Denardo Dawkins, Sr., No. CV-22-00458-TUC-RM (DTF) 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 Department of Economic Security, 13 Defendant. 14 15 On October 4, 2022, Plaintiff Elkino Denardo Dawkins, Sr. filed a pro se 16 Complaint (Doc. 1) and an Application for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2). 17 The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge D. Thomas Ferraro, who granted Plaintiff 18 leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 5) and, upon screening, dismissed the 19 Complaint with leave to amend for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be 20 granted (Doc. 14). In his Screening Order, Magistrate Judge Ferraro warned Plaintiff that 21 failure to file an amended complaint would result in the issuance of a Report and 22 Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that this matter be dismissed without 23 prejudice. (Doc. 14.). Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint, and Magistrate 24 Judge Ferraro accordingly issued an R&R recommending dismissal. (Doc. 15.) No 25 objections to the R&R were filed, and the deadline for filing objections has expired. 26 A district judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions” of a 27 magistrate judge’s “report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which 28 objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The advisory committee’s notes to Rule || 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure state that, “[w]hen no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record 3|| in order to accept the recommendation” of a magistrate judge. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) 4|| advisory committee’s note to 1983 addition. See also Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 || F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999) (“If no objection or only partial objection is made, the 6|| district court judge reviews those unobjected portions for clear error.”); Prior v. Ryan, CV 10-225-TUC-RCC, 2012 WL 1344286, at *1 (D. Ariz. Apr. 18, 2012) (reviewing for 8 || clear error unobjected-to portions of Report and Recommendation). 9 This Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Ferraro’s R&R and the record in this 10 || case. The Court finds no error in Magistrate Judge Ferraro’s R&R. 11 Accordingly, 12 IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 15) is accepted 13 || and adopted in full. 14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the above-entitled action is dismissed 15 || without prejudice for failure to state a claim and failure to comply with Court Orders. || The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. 17 Dated this 27th day of February, 2023. 18 19 20 — pWf’ □□ Honorable Rostsiary □□□□□□□ 22 United States District □□□□□ 23 24 25 26 27 28 _2-