Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_24-cv-00237/USCOURTS-azd-4_24-cv-00237-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

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

Elkino Dawkins, Sr,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Arizona Department of Economic Security,

Defendant.

No. CV-24-00237-TUC-RM (MSA)

ORDER 

In an Order dated August 8, 2024, Magistrate Judge Maria S. Aguilera screened

Plaintiff’s pro se Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). (Doc. 9.) Judge 

Aguilera found that Plaintiff did not allege sufficient facts to establish this Court’s subject 

matter jurisdiction or to state a claim for relief. (Id.) Judge Aguilera dismissed the 

Complaint but granted Plaintiff until September 9, 2024, to file a first amended complaint. 

(Id.)

1

On September 23, 2024, after Plaintiff failed to file an amended pleading, Judge 

Aguilera issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that this Court affirm the 

dismissal of Plaintiff’s Complaint and dismiss this case without prejudice. (Doc. 10.) No 

objections to the Report and Recommendation were filed, and Plaintiff has not 

communicated with the Court in any other way.

A district judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions” of a 

magistrate judge’s “report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which 

1

Judge Aguilera advised Plaintiff that she would recommend dismissal of this case if he 

failed to file an amended pleading. (Doc. 9 at 1, 4.)

Case 4:24-cv-00237-RM-MSA Document 11 Filed 12/18/24 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

objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The advisory committee’s notes to Rule 72(b) 

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure state that, “[w]hen no timely objection is filed, the 

court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to 

accept the recommendation” of a magistrate judge. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory 

committee’s note to 1983 addition. See also Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 

739 (7th Cir. 1999) (“If no objection or only partial objection is made, the district court 

judge reviews those unobjected portions for clear error.”); Prior v. Ryan, CV 10-225-TUCRCC, 2012 WL 1344286, at *1 (D. Ariz. Apr. 18, 2012) (reviewing for clear error 

unobjected-to portions of Report and Recommendation).

The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Aguilera’s Report and Recommendation, 

Plaintiff’s Complaint, and the record. The Court finds no error in Magistrate Judge 

Aguilera’s Report and Recommendation. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 10) is accepted and 

adopted in full.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the dismissal (Doc. 9) of Plaintiff’s Complaint

(Doc. 1) is affirmed. The above-captioned matter is dismissed without prejudice. The 

Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case.

Dated this 17th day of December, 2024.

Case 4:24-cv-00237-RM-MSA Document 11 Filed 12/18/24 Page 2 of 2