Serikbay et al v. Mullin 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
Assemay Serikbay, et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
Markwayne Mullin, et al.,
Respondents.
No. CV-26-05745-PHX-JFM
ORDER
This matter was assigned to Magistrate Judge James F. Metcalf. (Doc. 4). On
September 30, 2026, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation with this
Court.1 (Doc. 26). To 	date, no 	objections 	have been 	filed. 	The 	Magistrate Judge
recommends dismissing this action because Plaintiffs’ I-485 applications were approved
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 2:26-cv-05745-SMM-JFM Document 28 Filed 10/16/26 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
and this action is now moot. (Id.)
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, on September 8,
2026, USCIS approved Plaintiffs’ Forms I-485 and Plaintiffs do not contest that their
applications were approved. Thus, this action is now moot.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth,
IT IS ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge. (Doc. 26).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing Plaintiffs’ Complaint for Writ of
Mandamus (Doc. 1) and this action as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to terminate this
case.
Dated this 16th day of October, 2026.
Case 2:26-cv-05745-SMM-JFM Document 28 Filed 10/16/26 Page 2 of 2