From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Acosta v. Pindernation Holdings LLC

United States District Court, District of Arizona
Apr 28, 2023
CV-23-00086-PHX-SMM (JFM) (D. Ariz. Apr. 28, 2023)

Opinion

CV-23-00086-PHX-SMM (JFM)

04-28-2023

Manuel de Jesus Romero Acosta, Plaintiff, v. Pindernation Holdings LLC, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

Stephen M. McNamee Senior United States District Judge

This matter was assigned to Magistrate Judge James F. Metcalf. (Doc. 3). On April 10, 2023, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation with this Court. (Doc. 21). To date, no objections have been filed.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

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.

DISCUSSION

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.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth, IT IS ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. (Doc. 21).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Attorneys Fees and Costs (Doc. 20) be granted to the extent of the relief provided herein.

IT IS FURHTER ORDERED awarding fees against Defendant Pindernation Holdings, LLC and Defendant Lord Pindernation (aka Michael Pinder), jointly and severally, for:

1. $5,569.50 in reasonable attorneys fees; and

2. $402.00 in court costs for the Clerk's filing fees.

3. Interest on the foregoing at the rate provided in 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a) from March 23, 2023.


Summaries of

Acosta v. Pindernation Holdings LLC

United States District Court, District of Arizona
Apr 28, 2023
CV-23-00086-PHX-SMM (JFM) (D. Ariz. Apr. 28, 2023)
Case details for

Acosta v. Pindernation Holdings LLC

Case Details

Full title:Manuel de Jesus Romero Acosta, Plaintiff, v. Pindernation Holdings LLC, et…

Court:United States District Court, District of Arizona

Date published: Apr 28, 2023

Citations

CV-23-00086-PHX-SMM (JFM) (D. Ariz. Apr. 28, 2023)