G&G Closed Circuit Events LLC v. Diaz

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5

9 G&G Closed Circuit Events LLC, No. CV-22-01837-PHX-JZB

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Jose O Diaz, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 This matter was assigned to Magistrate Judge John Z. Boyle. On January 24, 2025, the 16 Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation with this Court.1 (Doc. 68). The 17 Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court grant the Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney Fees 18 and Costs. (Doc. 56). To date, no objections have been filed.

20 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 21 to General Order 21-25, which states in relevant part:

22 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 23 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 24 to the full authority of the Magistrate Judge,

25 IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge will prepare a Report and Recommendation for the Chief United States District Judge or designee. 26 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED designating the following District Court 27 Judges to review and, if deemed suitable, to sign the order of dismissal on my behalf: 28 Phoenix/Prescott: Senior United States District Judge Stephen M. McNamee 1 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 6|| Magistrate Judge’s recommendation relieves the Court of conducting de novo review of 7\|| the Magistrate Judge’s factual findings and waives all objections to those findings on 8 || appeal. See Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998). A failure to object to a 9|| Magistrate Judge’s conclusion “is a factor to be weighed in considering the propriety of || finding waiver of an issue on appeal.” Id. 11 Il. DISCUSSION 12 Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and no 13 || Objections having been made by any party thereto, the Court hereby incorporates and || adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. 16 Accordingly, for the reasons set forth, 17 IT IS ORDERED granting Plaintiff's Motion for Award of Attorneys’ Fees. (Doc. 56). 19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED awarding Plaintiff $22,731.75 for attorney fees and || $2,516.70 in costs, against Defendant Mariscos E] Tiburon, LLC 21 Dated this 28th day of February, 2025. 22 23 Legge. Ais.) at 24 Stephen M. McNamee 35 Senior United States District Judge 26 27 28

_2-