From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Johnson v. Colvin

United States District Court, District of Arizona
Jan 19, 2024
No. CV-23-00623-PHX-JZB (D. Ariz. Jan. 19, 2024)

Opinion

CV-23-00623-PHX-JZB

01-19-2024

Tyler Johnson, Plaintiff, v. Cameron Colvin, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

Honorable Stephen M. McNamee, Senior United States District Judge

This matter was assigned to Magistrate Judge John Z. Boyle. (Doc. 3). On January 5, 2024, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation with this Court. (Doc. 19). The Magistrate Judge has recommended that Plaintiff's Motion for Entry of Default Judgment be granted against Defendant Cameron Colvin and the named Entity Defendants: CamCo Commercial Inc., CamCo Galaxy and Technology Investments LLC, Linking Sports and Communities, Rise Above Development BA LLC, Rise Above Development Gym LLC, and Rise Above Development INF LLC. To date, no objections have been filed.

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.

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. 19).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Plaintiff's Motion for Entry of Default Judgment, Doc. 18), against the named Entity Defendants and Defendant Colvin.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of the Court to enter default judgment against the named Entity Defendants and Defendant Colvin.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED awarding Plaintiff $15,366.30 plus post-judgment interest at the applicable statutory rate against all named Entity Defendants, jointly and severally, except Defendant Colvin and the unnamed Due Defendants, with postjudgment interest calculated pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Colvin be held liable for $10,244.20 in liquidated damages under the FLSA and AMWA equivalent to double the amount of the $5,122.10 in unpaid wages, with post-judgment interest calculated at the applicable statutory rate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1961(a).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing all unnamed Doe Defendants without prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff have no later than 14 days after entry of this Judgment to file an application for attorney fees and costs.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of the Court to terminate this action.


Summaries of

Johnson v. Colvin

United States District Court, District of Arizona
Jan 19, 2024
No. CV-23-00623-PHX-JZB (D. Ariz. Jan. 19, 2024)
Case details for

Johnson v. Colvin

Case Details

Full title:Tyler Johnson, Plaintiff, v. Cameron Colvin, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, District of Arizona

Date published: Jan 19, 2024

Citations

No. CV-23-00623-PHX-JZB (D. Ariz. Jan. 19, 2024)