Robinson v. Beyond Food LLC ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Tillman Robinson, No. CV-23-00443-PHX-CDB 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 Beyond Food LLC, 13 Defendant. 14 15 This matter was assigned to Magistrate Judge Camille D. Bibles. (Doc. 5). On 16 November 17, 2023, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation with this 17 Court.1 (Doc. 17). The Magistrate Judge has recommended that Plaintiff’s Motion for 18 Default Judgment as to Beyond Food LLC, (Doc. 15), be granted. To date, no objections 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 have been filed. 2 STANDARD OF REVIEW 3 The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 4 recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see Baxter v. 5 Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991). Parties have fourteen days from the 6 service of a copy of the Magistrate’s recommendation within which to file specific 7 written objections to the Court. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, 72. Failure to 8 object to a Magistrate Judge’s recommendation relieves the Court of conducting de novo 9 review of the Magistrate Judge’s factual findings and waives all objections to those 10 findings on appeal. See Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998). A failure to 11 object to a Magistrate Judge’s conclusion “is a factor to be weighed in considering the 12 propriety of finding waiver of an issue on appeal.” Id. 13 DISCUSSION 14 Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and no 15 Objections having been made by any party thereto, the Court hereby incorporates and 16 adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. 17 CONCLUSION 18 Accordingly, for the reasons set forth, 19 IT IS ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate 20 Judge. (Doc. 17). 21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Default 22 Judgment. (Doc. 15). 23 IT IS FUTHER ORDERED that judgment be entered such that Plaintiff be 24 awarded $1,944.00 plus post-judgment interest at the applicable statutory rate against 25 Defendant Beyond Food LLC. 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs have no later than 14 days after 2|| entry of Judgment to file an application for attorney fees and costs. 3 Dated this 6th day of December, 2023. 4 5 Laphee Z.. - WV, veer, 6 H orable Stephen M. McNamee Senior United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3-