Iams v. FBI 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
Craig Arthur Iams,
Plaintiff,
v.
FBI, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-25-04422-PHX-CDB
ORDER
This matter was assigned to Magistrate Judge Camille D. Bibles. (Doc. 6). On
January 27, 2026, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) with
this Court.1 (Doc. 12). The Magistrate Judge recommends dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint
(Doc. 1) and denying Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 3),
Motion to Allow Electronic Filing (Doc. 4), and Motion for Service by U.S. Marshals (Doc.
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-04422-SMM-CDB Document 13 Filed 03/10/26 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
5) as moot. To date, no objections have been filed.
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 modifies the R&R to dismiss
the Complaint without prejudice.3
CONCLUSION
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED modifying the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge. (Doc. 12).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint without
prejudice and without leave to amend. (Doc. 1).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In
2 The factual and procedural history of this case is set forth in the Magistrate Judge’s
Report and Recommendation (Doc. 12).
3 “[A] § 1915(d) dismissal is not a dismissal on the merits, but rather an exercise of the
court’s discretion under the in forma pauperis statute. . . .It could, however, have a res
judicata effect on frivolousness determinations for future in forma pauperis petitions.”
Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 34 (1992).
Case 2:25-cv-04422-SMM-CDB Document 13 Filed 03/10/26 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
Forma Pauperis as moot. (Doc. 3).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Allow Electronic
Filing by a Party Appearing Without an Attorney as moot. (Doc. 4).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Service by U.S.
Marshals as moot. (Doc. 5).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to terminate this action.
Dated this 10th day of March, 2026.
Case 2:25-cv-04422-SMM-CDB Document 13 Filed 03/10/26 Page 3 of 3