Dale Robert Lanier v. Freedom Mortgage Corporation, et al.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8 Dale Robert Lanier, No. CV-25-02375-PHX-JFM

9 Plaintiff, ORDER

10 v.

11 Freedom Mortgage Corporation, et al.,

12 Defendants. 13 14 This matter was assigned to Magistrate Judge James F. Metcalf. (Doc. 3). On 15 December 3, 2025, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation with this 16 Court.1 (Doc. 15). The Magistrate Judge recommends that this case be dismissed without 17 prejudice pursuant to Rule 4(m) because Plaintiff failed to show good cause or excusable 18 neglect to justify an extension of time to complete service. (Id. at 3); Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). 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 || To date, no 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 □□□□□□ □□□ 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 findings on appeal. See Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998). A 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. Moreover, Plaintiff failed to 17 || show good cause or excusable neglect to justify an extension of time to complete service. 18 |) (See Doc. 13). 19 Accordingly, 20 IT IS ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. (Doc. 15). 22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing this case without prejudice pursuant 23 || to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). 24 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to terminate this || case. 26 Dated this 22nd day of December, 2025.

28 Stephen M. McNamee Senior United States District Judge -2-