Parker v. Computershare Incorporated et al

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
Theadra Parker,
Plaintiff,
v.
Computershare Incorporated, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-25-02221-PHX-CDB
ORDER
This matter was assigned to Magistrate Judge Camille D. Bibles. (Doc. 3). On
January 6, 2026, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation with this
Court.1 (Doc. 32). To date, no objections have been filed. The Magistrate Judge
recommends that “Computershare Incorporated” be dismissed as a defendant in this
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 2:25-cv-02221-CDB Document 35 Filed 01/21/26 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
matter, and that all of Plaintiff’s claims as only against “Computershare Incorporated” as
stated in the operative Second Amended Complaint be dismissed without prejudice for
Plaintiff’s failure to serve this defendant in compliance with Rule 4 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and the Court’s order requiring service of a summons and the Second
Amended Complaint on Computershare Incorporated no later than December 22, 2025.
(Doc. 32 at 5-6).
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see Baxter v.
Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991). Parties have fourteen days from the
service of a copy of the Magistrate’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 the Magistrate Judge’s factual findings and waives all objections to those
findings on appeal. See Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998). A failure to
object to a Magistrate Judge’s conclusion “is a factor to be weighed in considering the
propriety of finding waiver of an issue on appeal.” Id.
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. (Doc. 32).
Even though there was confusion over whether Computershare Incorporated is the
same entity as Defendant Newrez LLC (“Newrez”) after the merger of Defendant
Specialized Loan Servicing LLC and Newrez, Plaintiff still has not submitted proof of
proper service pursuant to Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure despite Newrez
clarifying that Computershare Incorporated is an independent corporate entity. (Doc. 29).
Also, the Court notes that since the Magistrate Judge filed the Report and
Recommendation, on January 14, 2026, Plaintiff submitted an incomplete summons that
Case 2:25-cv-02221-CDB Document 35 Filed 01/21/26 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
does not contain an address for Computershare Incorporated to the Clerk of Court and did
not submit proof of service. (See Docs. 33, 34). Thus, the Court cannot still determine if
Plaintiff properly served Computershare Incorporated.
Moreover, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that Computershare
Incorporated should be dismissed as a defendant in this matter, and that all of Plaintiff’s
claims against Computershare Incorporated as stated in the operative Second Amended
Complaint should be dismissed without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to serve this
defendant in compliance with Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. 32).
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth,
IT IS ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge. (Doc. 32).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing Computershare Incorporated as a
defendant in this matter.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing all of Plaintiff’s claims as only against
Computershare Incorporated as stated in the operative Second Amended Complaint
without prejudice. (Doc. 13).
Dated this 21st day of January, 2026.
Case 2:25-cv-02221-CDB Document 35 Filed 01/21/26 Page 3 of 3