Opinion
CV-22-01248-PHX-DMF
10-12-2022
ORDER
HONORABLE STEPHEN M. MCNAMEE, SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
This matter was assigned to Magistrate Judge Deborah M. Fine. (Doc. 3). On September 21, 2022, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation with this Court, recommending that the case be dismissed without prejudice for Plaintiff's failures to comply with orders that Plaintiff pay the filing fee or file a signed, amended Application to Proceed Without Prepaying Fees or Costs. (Doc. 10). Then, Plaintiff filed a document titled Motion to Conclude Case, which the Court interprets as an Objection to the Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 12). However, Plaintiff did not submit the filing fee or a signed, amended Application to Proceed Without Prepaying Fees or Costs with the Objection.
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 to General Order 21-25, which states in relevant part:
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 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 to the full authority of the Magistrate Judge,
IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge will prepare a Report and Recommendation for the Chief United States District Judge or designee.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED designating the following District Court Judges to review and, if deemed suitable, to sign the order of dismissal on my behalf:
Phoenix/Prescott: Senior United States District Judge Stephen M. McNamee.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
When reviewing a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, this Court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991). However, the relevant provision of the Federal Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), “does not on its face require any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); see also Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Of course, de novo review of a R & R is only required when an objection is made to the R & R.”); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (“Neither the Constitution nor the [Federal Magistrates Act] requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct.”). Likewise, it is well-settled that “failure to object to a magistrate judge's factual findings waives the right to challenge those findings.” Bastidas v. Chappell, 791 F.3d 1155, 1159 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Miranda v. Anchondo, 684 F.3d 844, 848 (9th Cir. 2012)).
The procedural history of this case is set forth in the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 10).
Plaintiff argues that “All rights reserved” is his true signature. However, parties appearing in court must follow rules of procedure. And Rule 11(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that “[e]very pleading, written motion, and other paper must be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney's name-or by a party personally if the party is unrepresented.” See Becker v. Montgomery, 532 U.S. 757, 764 (2001) (interpreting Rule 11(a) to require “a name handwritten”). Thus, the Court finds Plaintiff's argument unpersuasive.
Plaintiff also appears to argue that the Magistrate Judge does not have jurisdiction over this matter. However, as explained earlier in this Order, the Report and Recommendation is not a final order-it is a recommendation sent to a District Court Judge.
Therefore, having reviewed the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and the Objection filed by Plaintiff, the Court hereby incorporates and adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth, IT IS ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. (Doc. 10).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing without prejudice this matter for failure to comply with orders that Plaintiff pay the filing fee or file a signed, amended Application to Proceed Without Prepaying Fees or Costs.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of the Court to terminate this matter and vacate any remaining deadlines.