Martinez v. Arizona, State of

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
Anthony Michael Martinez,
Plaintiff,
v.
State of Arizona, et al.,
Defendant.
No. CV-25-02838-PHX-JZB
ORDER
This matter was assigned to Magistrate Judge John Z. Boyle. (Doc. 8). On
September 23, 2025, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation with this
Court. (Doc. 13).1 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 2:25-cv-02838-SMM-JZB Document 18 Filed 11/13/25 Page 1 of 3

- 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
Here, Plaintiff filed a Complaint alleging Defendant State of Arizona violated his
rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to plausibly
allege any facts that would create a reasonable inference of harm caused by Defendant.
Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and no
Objections having been made by any party thereto, the Court hereby incorporates and
adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge. (Doc. 13).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Application for Leave to
Proceed In Forma Pauperis as moot. (Doc. 2).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Application
for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. (Doc. 10).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Plaintiff’s Proposed Amended
Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. (Doc. 11).
Case 2:25-cv-02838-SMM-JZB Document 18 Filed 11/13/25 Page 2 of 3

- 3 -
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
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of the Court to file Plaintiff’s
Proposed Amended Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. (Doc. 11).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint with leave to
amend. (Doc. 1).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing Plaintiff to file an amended complaint on
or by Friday, December 19, 2025.
Dated this 12th day of November, 2025.
Case 2:25-cv-02838-SMM-JZB Document 18 Filed 11/13/25 Page 3 of 3