Wright v. Virtual Benefit Solutions Incorporated Hearing Clinic

Opinion

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

9 Sarah Wright, No. CV-24-08081-PCT-MTM

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Virtual Benefit Solutions Incorporated Hearing Clinic, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 This matter was assigned to Magistrate Judge Michael T. Morrissey. (Doc. 3) On 16 August 26, 2024 the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation with this Court.1 17 (Doc. 14). The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Plaintiff’s motion for default 18 judgment be granted. To date, no objections have been filed. 19 STANDARD OF REVIEW

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 2 recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see Baxter v. 3 Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991). Parties have fourteen days from the service 4 of a copy of the Magistrate’s recommendation within which to file specific written 5 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 10 finding waiver of an issue on appeal.” Id. 11 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 14 adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. 15 CONCLUSION 16 Accordingly, for the reasons set forth, 17 IT IS ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate 18 Judge. (Doc. 14). 19 /// 20 // 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED awarding Plaintiff $157,668.78 plus post-judgment 2|| interest at the applicable statutory rate, and of that amount, $47,238.90 (consisting of || $38,070 in trebled unpaid minimum wages plus $9,168.90 in doubled unpaid overtime 4|| wages) be awarded against all Defendants, jointly and severally. The remaining 5|| $110,429.88 in unpaid non-minimum wage damages be awarded against Defendant Virtual 6|| Benefit Solutions Inc., Hearing Clinic. 7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff file an application for attorneys’ fees 8 || and costs by September 25, 2024. 9 Dated this 12th day of September, 2024. 10 11 12 — Lif oven Hdhorable Stephen M. McNamee 13 Senior United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-3-