Brodders v. Sodexo Incorporated

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5

9 Stacy L Brodders, No. CV-24-03537-PHX-MTM

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Sodexo Incorporated, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 This matter was assigned to Magistrate Judge Michael T. Morrissey. (Doc. 3). On 16 August 22, 2025, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation with this 17 Court.1 (Doc. 10). The Magistrate Judge has recommended that Plaintiff’s Complaint be 18 dismissed without leave to amend. To date, no objections have been filed. 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 2 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 □□□□□□ □□□ 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 7\| object to a Magistrate Judge’s recommendation relieves the Court of conducting de novo 8 || review of the Magistrate Judge’s factual findings and waives all objections to those 9|| 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 11 || propriety of finding waiver of an issue on appeal.” Id. 13 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 15 || adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. Moreover, □□□□□□□□□□□ || Amended Complaint fails to identify any facts or connect any allegations to any 17 || Defendant or indicate how any of the Defendant’s actions give rise to civil liability. 19 Accordingly, for the reasons set forth, 20 IT IS ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate || Judge. (Doc. 10). 22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing without leave to amend □□□□□□□□□□□ 23 || Amended Complaint. (Doc. 9). 24 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to terminate this case. 25 Dated this 15th day of September, 2025. 26 ZA Zh 27 Stephen M. McNamee 28 Senior United States District Judge

_2-