Lee v. San Diego Police Department 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
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Jayme Lee,
Plaintiff,
v.
San Diego Police Department, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-25-04143-PHX-JZB
ORDER
This matter was assigned to Magistrate Judge John Z. Boyle. (Doc. 4). On
February 6, 2026, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation with this
Court.1 (Doc. 11). To 	date, no 	objections 	have been 	filed. 	The 	Magistrate Judge
recommends that this matter be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
41(b) because Plaintiff did not pay the statutorily mandated filing fees. (Id.)
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-04143-SMM-JZB Document 12 Filed 02/24/26 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
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 not
complied with the Court’s order to pay the statutorily required filing fees, therefore, the
Court dismisses this action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to prosecute.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth,
IT IS ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge. (Doc. 11).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing Plaintiff Jayme Lee’s Complaint (Doc.
1) and this action without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
IT FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to enter judgment
accordingly and terminate this case.
Dated this 23rd day of February, 2026.
Case 2:25-cv-04143-SMM-JZB Document 12 Filed 02/24/26 Page 2 of 2