Fair Market Housing Coalition v. United States Department of the Interior

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: February 19, 2020
• Docket: 2:19-cv-04665
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Fair Market Housing Coalition, No. CV-19-04665-PHX-ESW

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 United States Department of the Interior,

13 Defendant. 14 15 Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Eileen S. Willett’s Report and 16 Recommendation, recommending that the Court dismiss without prejudice the Complaint 17 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). (Doc. 10.) Having reviewed the Report 18 and Recommendation, the Court hereby adopts the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. 19 I. LEGAL STANDARD 20 When reviewing a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, the Court must 21 “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is 22 made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 23 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also 24 Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing Britt v. Simi Valley Unified 25 Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983)). Parties have fourteen days from the service 26 of a copy of the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation within which to file specific written 27 objections to the Court. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, 72. Failure to object to a 28 Magistrate Judge’s recommendation relieves the Court of conducting de novo review of □□ the Magistrate Judge’s factual findings; the Court then may decide the dispositive motion 2|| on the applicable law. Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979) (citing 3 || Campbell v. United States Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196 (9th Cir. 1974)). 4 By failing to object to a Report and Recommendation, a party waives its right to || challenge the Magistrate Judge’s factual findings, but not necessarily the Magistrate 6|| Judge’s legal conclusions. Baxter, 923 F.2d at 1394; see also Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 7\| 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998) (failure to object to Magistrate Judge’s legal conclusion “‘is a 8 || factor to be weighed in considering the propriety of finding waiver of an issue on appeal’’); 9|| Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing McCall v. Andrus, 628 F.2d 1185, 1187 (th Cir. 1980)). 11] OU. DISCUSSION 12 Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and no 13 || objections having been made by any party thereto, the Court hereby incorporates and || adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. 15] OI. CONCLUSION 16 Accordingly, 17 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the 18 || Magistrate Judge. (Doc. 10.) 19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing without prejudice the Complaint 20 || pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). (Doc. 1.) 21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to terminate this case. 22 Dated this 19th day of February, 2020. 23 Lig Bi □□□□□ 25 Honofable Stephen M. McNamee 26 Senior United States District Judge 27 28

_2-