Fuentes v. Express Truss & Framing Systems LLC et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Jose Fuentes,
Plaintiff,
v.
Express Truss & Framing Systems LLC, et
al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-24-01888-PHX-CDB
ORDER
This matter was assigned to Magistrate Judge Camille D. Bibles. (Doc. 7). On
March 12, 2026, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) with
this Court.1 (Doc. 40). The Magistrate Judge recommends granting the parties’ Stipulation
of Dismissal and dismissing this matter in its entirety, with prejudice. (See Doc. 39). To
date, no objections have been filed.
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 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
Case 2:24-cv-01888-SMM-CDB Document 41 Filed 03/31/26 Page 1 of 2

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STANDARD OF REVIEW
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 Baxter v.
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 object to a
Magistrate Judge’s recommendation relieves the Court of conducting de novo 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 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.
DISCUSSION
Having 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 Magistrate Judge’s
R&R.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED adopting the Magistrate Judge’s R&R. (Doc. 40).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED approving the Stipulation. (Doc. 39).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing this action in its entirety, with prejudice,
each party to bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to terminate this case.
Dated this 31st day of March, 2026.
Case 2:24-cv-01888-SMM-CDB Document 41 Filed 03/31/26 Page 2 of 2