Opinion
CV-24-01260-PHX-JFM
10-22-2024
Stanna L Sperling, Plaintiff, v. City of Tempe, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
Honorable Stephen M. McNamee Senior United States District Judge
This matter was assigned to Magistrate Judge James F. Metcalf. (Doc. 3). On September 25, 2024, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation with this Court. (Doc. 19). The Magistrate Judge recommended that Defendants City of Tempe and Julie Schofield be dismissed from this action for Plaintiff's failure to timely serve them. To date, no objections have been filed.
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
The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991). Parties have fourteen days from the service of a copy of the Magistrate's recommendation within which to file specific written objections to the Court. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 6, 72. Failure to object to a Magistrate Judge's recommendation relieves the Court of conducting de novo review of the Magistrate Judge's factual findings and waives all objections to those findings on appeal. See Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998). A failure to 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.
DISCUSSION
Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and no Objections having been made by any party thereto, the Court hereby incorporates and adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and dismisses Defendants City of Tempe and Julie Schofield.
Upon review of the docket, the Court notes that Plaintiff's deadline to serve the remaining Defendant in this action, Corey Donald Woods, was October 16, 2024. The Magistrate Judge provided notice to Plaintiff of this deadline in an Order dated July 26, 2024. (Doc. 17). No proof of service has been filed, and no summons obtained, for Defendant Woods. Accordingly, the Court finds it appropriate to dismiss Defendant Woods from this action. As there are no remaining named Defendants, this action is dismissed as a whole for Plaintiff's failure to timely serve Defendants.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth, IT IS ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. (Doc. 19).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing without prejudice this action for Plaintiff's failure to timely serve Defendants as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to close this case.