Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_24-cv-03254/USCOURTS-azd-2_24-cv-03254-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ovard Aloise Ambroise
Plaintiff
Desert Financial
Defendant

Document Text:

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

Ovard Aloise Ambroise,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Desert Financial,

Defendant.

No. CV-24-03254-PHX-JFM

ORDER 

This matter was assigned to Magistrate Judge James F. Metcalf. (Doc. 3). On

December 10, 2024, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation with this 

Court.1(Doc. 10). Plaintiff timely filed a Response to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and 

Recommendation on December 17, 2024. Having reviewed the Report and 

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-03254-SMM-JFM Document 12 Filed 01/06/25 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

Recommendation and Plaintiff’s Response thereto, the Court orders as follows.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

When reviewing a Magistrate Judge=s Report and Recommendation, this Court 

Ashall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection 

is made,@ and Amay 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). 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)).

DISCUSSION

The Magistrate Judge has recommended that Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed 

without prejudice and without leave to amend due to Plaintiff’s failure to show that 

subject matter jurisdiction is proper. The Magistrate Judge, in evaluating Plaintiff’s 

claims for civil rights violations pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, conspiracy pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1985, discriminatory and predatory lending, and fair debt collection, has

determined that Plaintiff has presented no cognizable basis for federal question 

jurisdiction in Plaintiff’s Complaint, (Doc. 1), or Plaintiff’s response to the Magistrate 

Judge’s Order to Show Cause. (Doc. 11).

Plaintiff’s Response to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is 

Case 2:24-cv-03254-SMM-JFM Document 12 Filed 01/06/25 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

largely unresponsive to the deficiencies stated in the Report and Recommendation.

Instead, Plaintiff recounts the procedural history of this case, inexplicably introduces “the 

‘mens rea’ theory[,]” and generally lists the elements of a claim under the Equal Credit 

Opportunity Act. (Id.) It appears to the Court that Plaintiff has raised no specific 

objection to any portion of the Report and Recommendation. Because the Federal 

Magistrates Act does not require review of “any issue that is not the subject of an 

objection,” the Court finds it appropriate to adopt the Magistrate Judge’s Report and 

Recommendation without further review. Accordingly, the Court hereby incorporates and 

adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth,

IT IS ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate 

Judge. (Doc. 10).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint, (Doc. 1),

without prejudice and without leave to amend.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to close this case.

Dated this 6th day of January, 2025.

Case 2:24-cv-03254-SMM-JFM Document 12 Filed 01/06/25 Page 3 of 3