Dempsey v. Leeds 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
Roy Thomas Dempsey,
Plaintiff,
v.
Unknown Leeds, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-24-01912-PHX-SMM
ORDER
This matter was assigned to Magistrate Judge John Z. Boyle (Doc. 18). On January
16, 2026, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) with this
Court.1 (Doc. 27). The Magistrate Judge has recommended dismissing this action without
prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 (b). To date, no objections have been filed.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
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 2:24-cv-01912-SMM Document 28 Filed 02/04/26 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
When reviewing a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, this Court “shall
make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is
made” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(C); see also Baxter
v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991). However, the relevant provision of the
Federal Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), “does not on its face require any review
at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140,
149 (1985); see also Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Of
course, de novo review of a R & R is only required when an objection is made to the R &
R.”); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc)
(“Neither the Constitution nor the [Federal Magistrates Act] requires a district judge to
review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as
correct.”). Likewise, it is well-settled that “failure to object to a magistrate judge’s factual
findings waives the right to challenge those findings.” Bastidas v. Chappell, 791 F.3d 1155,
1159 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Miranda v. Anchondo, 684 F.3d 844, 848 (9th Cir. 2012)).
DISCUSSION2
On July 31, 2025, the Court screened Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint and permitted
his Eighth Amendment inadequate medical care and threat to safety claims. (Doc. 18 at 7–
9). The Court cautioned Plaintiff that failure to file a notice of change address could result
in dismissal of this action, reiterating multiple prior warnings. (See Doc. 18 at 10; see also
Doc. 13 at 10). On September 9, 2025, the Court received notice that Plaintiff’s mail was
returned undeliverable due to his release from custody. (Doc. 23). On December 11, 2025,
the Court ordered Plaintiff to “file a notice of change address” or “show cause why this
matter should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute.” (Doc. 25 at 3.) To date, Plaintiff
has not filed a change of address or further appeared in this action. (See Doc. 27 at 2–3).
Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute or to comply with the Court’s orders warrants
2 The factual and procedural history of this case is set forth in the Magistrate Judge=s
Report and Recommendation (Doc. 27).
Case 2:24-cv-01912-SMM Document 28 Filed 02/04/26 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
dismissal. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see also Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-
30 (1962) (a court has inherent authority to dismiss for lack of prosecution to prevent undue
delay and calendar congestion); see also Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (1992)
(a district court may dismiss an action for failure to comply with court orders). 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.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge. (Doc. 27).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint without
prejudice. (Doc. 17).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to terminate this action.
Dated this 3rd day of February, 2026.
Case 2:24-cv-01912-SMM Document 28 Filed 02/04/26 Page 3 of 3