Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_10-cv-00572/USCOURTS-azd-4_10-cv-00572-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Racketeering (RICO)

---

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

Benito Camacho and Lucina Camacho, 

husband and wife, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Chase Home Finance, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-572-TUC-FRZ 

 ORDER

Pending before the Court for consideration is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Under

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5) and 12 (b)(6). 

This action, originally filed in the Arizona Superior Court in and for the County of

Pima and removed to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441 and 28 U.S.C. § 1331, was

referred to Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Marshall for all pretrial proceedings and report and

recommendation in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and LRCiv 72.1

and LRCiv 72.2 of the Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for the District

of Arizona, Local Rules of Civil Procedure.

Defendant filed its motion to dismiss on November 15, 2010.

On November 18, 2010, Magistrate Judge Marshall issued an Order advising the

Plaintiff that Defendant had filed a motion to dismiss and of the specific provisions of LRCiv

7.2 required in filing a response and the consequences of non-compliance, including the

granting of the motion and dismissal of this action with prejudice.

Case 4:10-cv-00572-FRZ Document 12 Filed 04/05/11 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

Plaintiffs failed to file a response to the motion to dismiss as ordered and have failed

to file any documents as of the filing date of this Order. 

Magistrate Judge Marshall issued her Report and Recommendations on January 6,

2011, recommending that the District Court, after its independent review of the record, enter

an order granting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss pursuant to LRCiv 7.2(i), based on

Plaintiffs’ failure to respond to the pending motion to dismiss.

The Report and Recommendation advised “the parties shall have fourteen (14) days

from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within which to file specific

written objections with the District Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rules 72(b), 6(a)

and 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. . . . Failure to timely file objections to any

factual or legal determination of the Magistrate Judge may be considered a waiver of a party's

right to de novo consideration of the issues. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia 328 F.3d

1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)(en banc).

No objections were filed.

The Court finds, after consideration of the Report and Recommendation, and no

objections filed thereto, that the findings of the Magistrate Judge shall be accepted and

adopted as the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Court. Based on the foregoing,

IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Marshall’s Report and Recommendation

(Doc. 11) is hereby ACCEPTED and ADOPTED as the findings of fact and conclusions

of law by this Court;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 9) is

GRANTED;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment

accordingly. 

DATED this 4th day of April, 2011.

Case 4:10-cv-00572-FRZ Document 12 Filed 04/05/11 Page 2 of 2