Wright v. Virtual Benefit Solutions Incorporated Hearing Clinic

Opinion

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

Plaintiff, ORDER

v.

Virtual Benefit Solutions Incorporated Hearing Clinic, et al., Defendants. This matter was assigned to Magistrate Judge Michael T. Morrissey. (Doc. 3) On August 26, 2024 the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation with this Court.1 (Doc. 14). The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment 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. 14). /// // /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED awarding Plaintiff $157,668.78 plus post-judgment 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 wages) be awarded against all Defendants, jointly and severally. The remaining $110,429.88 in unpaid non-minimum wage damages be awarded against Defendant Virtual Benefit Solutions Inc., Hearing Clinic. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff file an application for attorneys’ fees and costs by September 25, 2024. Dated this 12th day of September, 2024. — Lif oven Hdhorable Stephen M. McNamee Senior United States District Judge

-3-