Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-04665/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-04665-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Fair Market Housing Coalition
Plaintiff
United States Department of the Interior
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

Fair Market Housing Coalition,

Plaintiff,

v. 

United States Department of the Interior,

Defendant.

No. CV-19-04665-PHX-ESW

ORDER 

Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Eileen S. Willett’s Report and 

Recommendation, recommending that the Court dismiss without prejudice the Complaint 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). (Doc. 10.) Having reviewed the Report 

and Recommendation, the Court hereby adopts the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation.

I. LEGAL STANDARD

When reviewing a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, the Court must 

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

made,” and “may 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) (citing Britt v. Simi Valley Unified 

Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983)). Parties have fourteen days from the service 

of a copy of the Magistrate Judge’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 

Case 2:19-cv-04665-ESW Document 11 Filed 02/19/20 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

the Magistrate Judge’s factual findings; the Court then may decide the dispositive motion 

on the applicable law. Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979) (citing 

Campbell v. United States Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196 (9th Cir. 1974)).

By failing to object to a Report and Recommendation, a party waives its right to 

challenge the Magistrate Judge’s factual findings, but not necessarily the Magistrate 

Judge’s legal conclusions. Baxter, 923 F.2d at 1394; see also Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 

449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998) (failure to object to Magistrate Judge’s legal conclusion “is a 

factor to be weighed in considering the propriety of finding waiver of an issue on appeal”); 

Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing McCall v. Andrus, 628 F.2d 

1185, 1187 (9th Cir. 1980)).

II. DISCUSSION

Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and no

objections having been made by any party thereto, the Court hereby incorporates and

adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation.

III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the 

Magistrate Judge. (Doc. 10.)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing without prejudice the Complaint 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). (Doc. 1.)

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

Dated this 19th day of February, 2020.

Honorable Stephen M. McNamee

Senior United States District Judge

Case 2:19-cv-04665-ESW Document 11 Filed 02/19/20 Page 2 of 2