Gianola-Bland v. Evans ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Paris Gianola-Bland, et al., No. CV-23-00569-PHX-JZB 10 Plaintiffs, ORDER 11 v. 12 Ryan C Evans, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 This matter was assigned to Magistrate Judge John Z. Boyle. (Doc. 2). On October 16 4, 2023, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation with this Court.1 (Doc. 17 14). In the Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge has recommended that this 18 case be dismissed without prejudice due to Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. To date, no 19 1 This case is assigned to a Magistrate Judge. However, not all parties have 20 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: 21 When a United States Magistrate Judge to whom a civil action has been 22 assigned pursuant to Local Rule 3.7(a)(1) considers dismissal to be appropriate but lacks the jurisdiction to do so under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) 23 due to incomplete status of election by the parties to consent or not consent to the full authority of the Magistrate Judge, 24 IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge will prepare a Report and 25 Recommendation for the Chief United States District Judge or designee. 26 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED designating the following District Court Judges to review and, if deemed suitable, to sign the order of dismissal on 27 my behalf: 28 Phoenix/Prescott: Senior United States District Judge Stephen M. McNamee 1 || objections have been filed. 2 STANDARD OF REVIEW 3 The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 4|| recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see Baxter _v. 5|| Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991). Parties have fourteen days from the 6|| service of a copy of the Magistrate’s recommendation within which to file specific 7\|| written objections to the Court. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, 72. Failure to 8 || object to a Magistrate Judge’s recommendation relieves the Court of conducting de novo 9|| review of the Magistrate Judge’s factual findings and waives all objections to those 10 || findings on appeal. See Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998). Failure to 11 || 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 DISCUSSION 14 Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and no 15 || Objections having been made by any party thereto, the Court hereby incorporates and 16 || adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. 17 CONCLUSION 18 Accordingly, for the reasons set forth, 19 IT IS ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate 20 || Judge. (Doc. 14). 21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing without prejudice this matter. 22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of the Court to terminate this 23 || matter. 24 Dated this 18th day of October, 2023. 25 26 Ligle.- WV, veer, a7 Hdhorable Stephen M. McNamee 38 Senior United States District Judge _2-