Quigley v. Soul Surgery LLC

Opinion

Elizabeth Quigley, No. CV-24-01050-PHX-ASB

Plaintiff, ORDER

v.

Soul Surgery LLC, et al.,

Defendants. This matter was assigned to Magistrate Judge Alison S. Bachus. (Doc. 35). On July 25, 2025, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation with this Court.1 (Doc. 35). The Magistrate Jude has recommended that Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment, (Doc. 33), be granted. To date, no objections have been filed. 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 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. 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. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth, IT IS ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. (Doc. 35). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment Against Defendants Soul Surgery LLC and John Mulligan and Jane Doe Mulligan, (Doc. 33), as follows: 1. Plaintiff is awarded statutory damages in the amount of $7,128.75 against Defendants Soul Surgery LLC and John Mulligan and Jane Doe Mulligan, jointly and severally; 2. Plaintiff is awarded additional statutory damages in the amount of $4,031.25 against Defendant Soul Surgery only; and /// 1 3. Post-judgment interest on the judgments shall be assessed at the statutory rate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED approving the Amended Stipulation of Dismissal of Defendants Heather and John Doe Mulligan. (Doc. 32). Defendants Heather Mulligan and John Doe Mulligan are dismissed from this action with prejudice, each to bear their own respective fees and costs. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to enter judgment accordingly and terminate this action. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff may file a motion for attorney fees on or before September 4, 2025. Dated this 21st day of August, 2025. Lgl ie one Stephen M. McNamee Senior United States District Judge

-3-