Golden v. Valleywise Behavioral Health Center

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.
Valleywise Behavioral Health Center,
Defendant.
No. CV-25-03972-PHX-MTM
ORDER
This matter was assigned to Magistrate Judge Michael T. Morrissey. (Doc. 2). On
January 13, 2026, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) with
this Court.1 (Doc. 9). The Magistrate Judge has recommended granting Plaintiff’s
Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. 6) and
dismissing this action without leave to amend. 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-03972-SMM-MTM Document 10 Filed 02/03/26 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
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.
DISCUSSION2
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 R&R. 3
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).
2 The factual and procedural history of this case is set forth in the Magistrate Judge’s
Report and Recommendation (Doc. 9).
3 Plaintiff has six related cases before the Court. See Golden v. Commissioner of Social
Security Administration, 2:25-cv-03890-SHD (D. A.Z.); see also Golden v. Maricopa Police
Department, 2:25-cv-03918-JJT (D. A.Z. Nov. 26, 2025) (dismissed for failure to
prosecute); see also Golden v. United Parcel Service, 2:25-cv-03963-JJT (D. A.Z. Jan. 6,
2026) (dismissed for failure to prosecute); see also Golden v. Community Bridges, 2:25-
cv-03964-DMF (D .A.Z. Dec. 16, 2025) (dismissed for failure to prosecute); see also
Golden v. Brad Miller Law et. al., 2:25-cv-03970-MTL (D. A.Z. Nov. 25, 2025) (dismissed
for lack of jurisdiction); see also Golden v. Federal Communications Commission, 2:25-
cv-03973-JJT (D. A.Z. Jan. 6, 2026) (dismissed for failure to prosecute).
Case 2:25-cv-03972-SMM-MTM Document 10 Filed 02/03/26 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 dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint without
prejudice. (Doc. 1).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to terminate this action.
Dated this 3rd day of February, 2026.
Case 2:25-cv-03972-SMM-MTM Document 10 Filed 02/03/26 Page 3 of 3