Sukackas v. Fine Food Incorporated

Opinion

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

9 Joseph Sukackas, No. CV-24-00063-PHX-MTM

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Fine Food Incorporated, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 This matter was assigned to Magistrate Judge Michael T. Morrissey. (Doc. 3). On 16 May 29, 2024, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation with this Court.1 17 (Doc. 16). The Magistrate Judge has recommended that Plaintiff’s Motion for Default 18 Judgment against Defendants be granted. To date, no objections have been filed. 19 1 This case is assigned to a Magistrate Judge. However, not all parties have 20 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: 21 When a United States Magistrate Judge to whom a civil action has been 22 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) 23 due to incomplete status of election by the parties to consent or not consent to the full authority of the Magistrate Judge, 24 IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge will prepare a Report and 25 Recommendation for the Chief United States District Judge or designee.

26 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED designating the following District Court Judges to review and, if deemed suitable, to sign the order of dismissal on 27 my behalf:

28 Phoenix/Prescott: Senior United States District Judge Stephen M. McNamee 1 STANDARD OF REVIEW 2 The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 3 recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see Baxter v. 4 Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991). Parties have fourteen days from the 5 service of a copy of the Magistrate’s recommendation within which to file specific 6 written objections to the Court. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, 72. Failure to 7 object to a Magistrate Judge’s recommendation relieves the Court of conducting de novo 8 review of the Magistrate Judge’s factual findings and waives all objections to those 9 findings on appeal. See Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998). A failure to 10 object to a Magistrate Judge’s conclusion “is a factor to be weighed in considering the 11 propriety of finding waiver of an issue on appeal.” Id. 12 DISCUSSION 13 Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and no 14 Objections having been made by any party thereto, the Court hereby incorporates and 15 adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. 16 CONCLUSION 17 Accordingly, for the reasons set forth, 18 IT IS ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate 19 Judge. (Doc. 16). 20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment. 21 (Doc. 15). 22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED entering judgment in favor of Plaintiff and 23 against Defendants in the amount of $30,491.20 plus post-judgment interest, for which: 24 1. All Defendants shall be jointly and severally liable for $29,983.00; and 25 2. Defendant Fine Food Inc. d/b/a/ Scottsdale Window Coverings shall be liable 26 for $508.20. 27 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to enter judgment 28 accordingly and terminate this action. 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff must file an application for || attorneys’ fees and costs by no later than Friday, June 28, 2024. 3 Dated this 13th day of June, 2024. 4 5 LiplaA Aah owed 6 Hdhorable Stephen M. McNamee 7 Senior United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-3-