Golden v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

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
Dwight Maurice Golden, III,
Plaintiff,
v.
Commissioner of Social Security
Administration,
Defendant.
No. CV-25-03890-PHX-JZB
ORDER
This matter was assigned to Magistrate Judge John Z. Boyle. (Doc. 2). On
November 14, 2025, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation with this
Court.1 (Doc. 9). The Magistrate Judge has recommended that this action be dismissed
without prejudice. To date, no objections have been filed.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
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-03890-SHD-JZB Document 13 Filed 01/05/26 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
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.
DISCUSSION2
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. The Court will, however,
permit Plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended Complaint to attempt to remedy the
deficiencies identified in the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. In filing an
amended Complaint, Plaintiff is reminded to comply with Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, which requires a “short and plain statement of the claim[s].”
CONCLUSION
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge. (Doc. 9).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In
Forma Pauperis. (Doc. 6).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing without prejudice and with leave to
amend Plaintiff’s Complaint. (Doc. 1).
///
2 The factual and procedural history of this case is set forth in the Magistrate Judge’s
Report and Recommendation (Doc. 9).
Case 2:25-cv-03890-SHD-JZB Document 13 Filed 01/05/26 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 that Plaintiff must file any amended complaint no
later than January 26, 2026. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint by this deadline,
this action shall be dismissed without further notice.
Dated this 5th day of January, 2026.
Case 2:25-cv-03890-SHD-JZB Document 13 Filed 01/05/26 Page 3 of 3