Landsberger v. Circle K Stores Incorporated 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
Matthew Linus Lyle Landsberger,
Plaintiff,
v.
Circle K Stores Incorporated, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-26-00180-TUC-RCC
ORDER
On May 14, 2026, in accordance with General Order 21-25, United States
Magistrate Judge James E. Marner issued his Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) to
this Court recommending that all federal claims alleged in this action be dismissed with
prejudice and that this action be remanded to the Arizona Superior Court, Santa Cruz
County. (Doc. 16.) No objection to Judge Marner’s R&R has been filed and the time for
filing an objection has elapsed.1
The standard of review of a magistrate judge’s R&R is dependent upon whether a
party objects: where there is no objection to a magistrate’s factual or legal determinations,
the district court need not review the decision “under a de novo or any other standard.”
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). However, when a party objects, the district court
1 The Court notes that on one occasion, Plaintiff’s mail was returned undeliverable (Doc.
15), but no other mailings have been returned. It is a plaintiff’s duty to prosecute his claims.
Fid. Phila. Tr. Co. v. Pioche Mines Consol., Inc., 587 F.2d 27, 29 (9th Cir. 1978). Local
Rule of Civil Procedure 83.3(d) requires that all unrepresented parties file a change of
address notice “no later than fourteen (14) days before the effective date of the change.”
LRCiv 83.3(d). Plaintiff was forewarned of his responsibility to update the Court of any
change of address pursuant to the Local Rules. (Doc. 5 at 6.)
Case 4:26-cv-00180-RCC-PSOT Document 17 Filed 06/09/26 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
must “determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been
properly objected to. The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended
disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with
instructions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Moreover, “while
the statute does not require the judge to review an issue de novo if no objections are filed,
it does not preclude further review by the district judge, sua sponte or at the request of a
party, under a de novo or any other standard.” Thomas, 474 U.S. at 154.
This Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1-1), the Motions to Dismiss
(Docs. 10, 12), and the R&R and finds the R&R to be well-reasoned. For the reasons set
forth in the R&R, this Court lacks jurisdiction over this action. As such, this action will be
remanded to the Arizona Superior Court, Santa Cruz County. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED. (Doc. 16.)
2. Defendant JP Morgan Chase Bank’s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to
State a Claim is DENIED AS MOOT. (Doc. 10.)
3. Defendant Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss Party is
DENIED AS MOOT. (Doc. 12.)
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DISMISSING all federal claims alleged in this
action and REMANDING this state law claims to the Arizona Superior Court, Santa Cruz
County. The Clerk of the Court shall mail a certified copy of the Report and
Recommendation (Doc. 16) and this Order to the Clerk of the Court for the Arizona
Superior Court, Santa Cruz County, 2150 N. Congress Dr. #209, Nogales, AZ 85621, as
set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DIRECTING the Clerk of the Court to terminate
all pending motions and close this case.
Dated this 8th day of June, 2026.
Case 4:26-cv-00180-RCC-PSOT Document 17 Filed 06/09/26 Page 2 of 2