Opinion
CV-24-00880-PHX-DMF
08-19-2024
Tanya Winters, Plaintiff, v. F-N-F Construction, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
Honorable Stephen M. McNamee Senior United States District Judge
This matter was assigned to Magistrate Judge Deborah M. Fine. (Doc. 3). On July 22, 2024, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation with this Court.(Doc. 24). The Magistrate Judge recommended that Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, (Doc. 22), be dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff has made filings which the Court construes to be objections the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. Having considered the Report and Recommendation and Plaintiff's objections, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation.
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.
I. 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). 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)).
II. DISCUSSION
The Magistrate Judge has concluded that Plaintiff's Amended Complaint does not contain a sufficient basis to invoke the Court's jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims. (Doc. 24 at 6). The Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff's allegations are conclusory and do not state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and thus, that Plaintiff's Amended Complaint should be dismissed without prejudice. (Id. at 6-7).
Plaintiff has filed notices that appear to object to the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. (Doc. 26, 27, 29). However, Plaintiff has not raised any objections to the Magistrate Judge's analysis or substantive conclusions. Rather, Plaintiff makes allegations that she has been denied use of the jail's resources, (Doc. 27), that Plaintiff has a traumatic brain injury that caused the deficiencies in Plaintiff's Complaint and cause Plaintiff to require representation, (Doc. 26), and that Plaintiff's documents have been wrongfully disposed of by the jail. (Doc. 29).
The Magistrate Judge placed Plaintiff on notice of the deficiencies in Plaintiff's original Complaint and permitted Plaintiff to correct the deficiencies. (Doc. 17). Plaintiff failed to correct the deficiencies in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, and Plaintiff has not objected to the Magistrate Judge's conclusions on this matter. Accordingly, the Court need not review the Magistrate Judge's conclusions as to the deficiencies in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. The Court thus adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth, IT IS ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. (Doc. 24).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing without prejudice this matter.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to terminate this case.