Rice v. Mirage-Luxe Limousine LLC

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: June 22, 2020
• Docket: 2:20-cv-00601
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Kenneth Rice, No. CV-20-00601-PHX-ESW

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Mirage-Luxe Limousine LLC, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 Pending before the Court is Magistrate Judge Eileen S. Willett’s Report and 16 Recommendation, recommending that the Court grant the parties’ Joint Stipulation to 17 Dismiss Defendants Without Prejudice and Request for Order Naming Remaining 18 Defendants as Employers (Doc. 15) and dismiss without prejudice Defendants Seashan 19 Family Limited Liability Partnership and KN Amjadi Family Limited Liability 20 Partnership. (Doc. 18.) To date, no objections have been filed. Having reviewed the Report 21 and Recommendation, the Court hereby adopts the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. 22 I. STANDARD OF REVIEW 23 When reviewing a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, the Court must 24 “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is 25 made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 26 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also 27 Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991) (citation omitted). Failure to object 28 to a Magistrate Judge’s recommendation relieves the Court of conducting de novo review 1|| of 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) (citation omitted). 4 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 6|| Judge’s legal conclusions. Baxter, 923 F.2d at 1394; see also Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 7\| 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998) (failure to object to a Magistrate Judge’s legal conclusion “is a 8 || factor to be weighed in considering the propriety of finding waiver of an issue on appeal’’); Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 1991) (citation omitted). 10} Ir. DISCUSSION 11 Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and no 12 || objections having been made by any party thereto, the Court hereby incorporates and 13 || adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. 14] DI. CONCLUSION 15 Accordingly, 16 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the 17|| Magistrate Judge. (Doc. 18.) 18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting the parties’ Joint Stipulation to Dismiss □□ Defendants Without Prejudice and Request for Order Naming Remaining Defendants as 20 || Employers. (Doc. 15.) 21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing without prejudice Defendants Seashan Family Limited Liability Partnership and KN Amjadi Family Limited Liability 23 || Partnership, each party to bear their own costs and fees. 24 Dated this 22nd day of June, 2020. 25 LiggleA fy 26 Honofable Stephen M. McNamee Senior United States District Judge 28

_2-