Williams v. Nordstrom Incorporated

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
Jordan L. Williams,
Plaintiff,
v.
Nordstrom Incorporated,
Defendant.
No. CV-26-01508-PHX-JZB
ORDER
This matter was assigned to Magistrate Judge John Z. Boyle. (Doc. 4). On April 2,
2026, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) with this Court.1
(Doc. 7). The Magistrate Judge recommended that this Court grant Plaintiff’s Application
to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 3) and dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1) with
leave to amend. (Doc. 7 at 8). To date, no objections have been filed.
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-01508-SHD Document 8 Filed 04/24/26 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
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 adopts the R&R.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge. (Doc. 7).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In
Forma Pauperis. (Doc. 3).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint without
prejudice and with leave to amend. (Doc. 1).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff may file an amended complaint on or
before May 22, 2026. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint by this deadline, the
Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate this action.
///
///
2 The factual and procedural history of this case is set forth in the Magistrate Judge’s
Report and Recommendation (Doc. 7).
Case 2:26-cv-01508-SHD Document 8 Filed 04/24/26 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
Dated this 24th day of April, 2026.
Case 2:26-cv-01508-SHD Document 8 Filed 04/24/26 Page 3 of 3