Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-01497/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-01497-1/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

Uzoma Odigwe, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

Social Security Administration, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-15-1497-PHX-NVW

 ORDER 

Before the Court are Plaintiffs’ Complaint against the Social Security 

Administration (“SSA”), the Federal Protective Service, and AKAL Security Company 

alleging race discrimination and retaliation. (Doc. 1), United States Magistrate Judge 

Duncan’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 4) and Plaintiffs’ Objections to the 

Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 7). 

At the time of Magistrate Judge Duncan’s issuance of the Report and 

Recommendation the case was assigned to him. Judge Duncan’s Report and 

Recommendation was addressed to the Presiding Judge of the Phoenix Division because 

a Magistrate Judge does not have the authority to take dispositive action in a case absent 

the full consent of the parties. Thereafter, one of the parties’ elected assignment of the 

case to district judge jurisdiction and the case was reassigned to the undersigned. 

 The Court has considered Plaintiffs’ objections and reviewed the Report and 

Recommendation de novo. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that 

the Court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and 

Recommendation to which specific objections are made). The Court accepts the 

Case 2:15-cv-01497-NVW Document 8 Filed 09/04/15 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 

magistrate judge’s recommended disposition within the meaning of Rule 72(b), Fed. R. 

Civ. P., and overrules Plaintiffs’ objections. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that the 

district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 

recommendations made by the magistrate”). 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of 

Magistrate Judge Duncan (Doc. 4) to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint because amendment 

would appear to be futile in light of any possible consideration of the facts which 

Plaintiffs have asserted and the applicable law. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Complaint is dismissed. 

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

accordingly and terminate this action. 

 Dated this 4th day of September, 2015. 

Neil V. Wake

United States District Judge

Case 2:15-cv-01497-NVW Document 8 Filed 09/04/15 Page 2 of 2