Ministry of Kings and Queens of Moorish National Ministry Trust v. Bridgecrest Acceptance Corporation

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
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Ministry of Kings and Queens of Moorish
National Ministry Trust,
Plaintiff,
v.
Bridgecrest Acceptance Corporation,
Defendant.
No. CV-25-01819-PHX-SMM (ESW)
ORDER
This matter was assigned to Magistrate Judge Eileen S. Willett. (Doc. 3). On
October 22, 2025, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation with this
Court.1 (Doc. 40). The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court deny Plaintiff’s Rule
60(b) Motion to Reopen Case Under Plaintiff’s Individual Capacity. (Id.) To date, no
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-01819-SMM-ESW Document 42 Filed 11/06/25 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
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.
DISCUSSION
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. Moreover, Plaintiff has
failed to demonstrate any extraordinary circumstances warranting the Court to reopen this
case and cannot represent the Trust pro se. See BLOM Bank SAL v. Honickman, 605
U.S. 204, 210 (2025).
CONCLUSION
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge. (Doc. 40).
Dated this 6th day of November, 2025.
Case 2:25-cv-01819-SMM-ESW Document 42 Filed 11/06/25 Page 2 of 2