Roy Thomas Dempsey v. Unknown Leeds, et al.

Opinion

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

9 Roy Thomas Dempsey, No. CV-24-01912-PHX-SMM

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Unknown Leeds, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 This matter was assigned to Magistrate Judge John Z. Boyle (Doc. 18). On January 16 16, 2026, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) with this 17 Court.1 (Doc. 27). The Magistrate Judge has recommended dismissing this action without 18 prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 (b). To date, no objections have been filed. 19 STANDARD OF REVIEW

20 1 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 21 Order 21-25, which states in relevant part:

22 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 23 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 24 to the full authority of the Magistrate Judge,

25 IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge will prepare a Report and Recommendation for the Chief United States District Judge or designee. 26 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED designating the following District Court 27 Judges to review and, if deemed suitable, to sign the order of dismissal on my behalf: 28 Phoenix/Prescott: Senior United States District Judge Stephen M. McNamee 1 When reviewing a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, this Court “shall 2 make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is 3 made” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 4 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(C); see also Baxter 5 v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991). However, the relevant provision of the 6 Federal Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), “does not on its face require any review 7 at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 8 149 (1985); see also Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Of 9 course, de novo review of a R & R is only required when an objection is made to the R & 10 R.”); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) 11 (“Neither the Constitution nor the [Federal Magistrates Act] requires a district judge to 12 review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as 13 correct.”). Likewise, it is well-settled that “failure to object to a magistrate judge’s factual 14 findings waives the right to challenge those findings.” Bastidas v. Chappell, 791 F.3d 1155, 15 1159 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Miranda v. Anchondo, 684 F.3d 844, 848 (9th Cir. 2012)). 16 DISCUSSION2 17 On July 31, 2025, the Court screened Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint and permitted 18 his Eighth Amendment inadequate medical care and threat to safety claims. (Doc. 18 at 7– 19 9). The Court cautioned Plaintiff that failure to file a notice of change address could result 20 in dismissal of this action, reiterating multiple prior warnings. (See Doc. 18 at 10; see also 21 Doc. 13 at 10). On September 9, 2025, the Court received notice that Plaintiff’s mail was 22 returned undeliverable due to his release from custody. (Doc. 23). On December 11, 2025, 23 the Court ordered Plaintiff to “file a notice of change address” or “show cause why this 24 matter should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute.” (Doc. 25 at 3.) To date, Plaintiff 25 has not filed a change of address or further appeared in this action. (See Doc. 27 at 2–3). 26 Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute or to comply with the Court’s orders warrants

27 2 The factual and procedural history of this case is set forth in the Magistrate Judge=s 28 Report and Recommendation (Doc. 27). dismissal. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see also Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629- □□ (1962) court has inherent authority to dismiss for lack of prosecution to prevent undue 3|| delay and calendar congestion); see also Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (1992) 4|| (a district court may dismiss an action for failure to comply with court orders). Having 5 || reviewed the R&R of the Magistrate Judge, and no Objections having been made by any || party thereto, the Court hereby incorporates and adopts the R&R. 7 CONCLUSION 8 Accordingly, 9 IT IS ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. (Doc. 27). 1] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing Plaintiff's Amended Complaint without || prejudice. (Doc. 17). 13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to terminate this action. 14 Dated this 3rd day of February, 2026. 15

Stephen M. McNamee 17 Senior United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_3-