Medina v. Brithe & Associates PLLC
Filing
14
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER approving, incorporating, and adopting the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Bridget S. Bade. (Doc. 13 .) FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment against Defendant Brithe & Assoc iates, PLC is GRANTED. (Doc. 12 .) IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall enter Judgment in favor of Plaintiff Diana Medina and against Defendant Brithe & Associates, PLC, in the amount of $4,362 ($1,000 plus $2,862 for attorney 039;s fees plus $500 for costs and non-taxable expenses). The Judgment shall earn interest at the annual federal rate from the date of entry of the Judgment until paid in full. Signed by Senior Judge Stephen M McNamee on 11/25/2013. (KMG) Modified to include tex on 11/26/2013 (KMG).
1
WO
2
3
4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
6
7
Diana Medina,
8
9
Plaintiff,
vs.
10
Brithe & Associates, PLC,
11
Defendant.
12
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. CV 13-573-PHX-SMM (BSB)
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
AND ORDER
13
14
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Complaint alleging a violation of the Fair Debt
15
Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692 et seq. (Doc. 1.) This matter was
16
assigned and litigated before Magistrate Judge Bridget S. Bade. (Doc. 3.) On September 19,
17
2013, Magistrate Judge Bade filed a Report and Recommendation with this Court. (Doc. 13.)
18
To date, no objections have been filed.
19
STANDARD OF REVIEW
20
When reviewing a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, this Court must
21
“make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is
22
made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
23
recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also Baxter
24
v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch.
25
Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983)). Failure to object to a Magistrate Judge’s
26
recommendation relieves the Court of conducting de novo review of the Magistrate Judge’s
27
factual findings; the Court then may decide the dispositive motion on the applicable law.
28
Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979) (citing Campbell v. United States
1
Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196 (9th Cir. 1974)).
2
By failing to object to a Report and Recommendation, a party waives its right to
3
challenge the Magistrate Judge’s factual findings, but not necessarily the Magistrate Judge’s
4
legal conclusions. Baxter, 923 F.2d at 1394; see also Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455
5
(9th Cir. 1998) (failure to object to a Magistrate Judge’s legal conclusion “is a factor to be
6
weighed in considering the propriety of finding waiver of an issue on appeal”); Martinez v.
7
Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing McCall v. Andrus, 628 F.2d 1185, 1187
8
(9th Cir. 1980)).
9
DISCUSSION
10
Having reviewed the legal conclusions of the Report and Recommendation of the
11
Magistrate Judge, and no objections having been made by Defendant, the Court hereby
12
incorporates and adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation.
13
CONCLUSION
14
For the reasons set forth,
15
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED approving, incorporating, and adopting the Report and
16
17
18
Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Bridget S. Bade. (Doc. 13.)
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment against
Defendant Brithe & Associates, PLC is GRANTED. (Doc. 12.)
19
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall enter Judgment in favor of
20
Plaintiff Diana Medina and against Defendant Brithe & Associates, PLC, in the amount of
21
$4,362 ($1,000 plus $2,862 for attorney’s fees plus $500 for costs and non-taxable expenses).
22
The Judgment shall earn interest at the annual federal rate from the date of entry of the
23
Judgment until paid in full.
24
DATED this 25th day of November, 2013.
25
26
27
28
cc: BSB
-2-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?