Cross v. Empressive Candles LLC et al

Filing 84

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: IT IS ORDERED that the 80 Report and Recommendation is accepted and adopted in full. IT IS ORDERED that Defendant's 75 Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows: the Motion is granted as to Plaintiff's claim that Defendant is jointly and severally liable and denied as to Plaintiff's strict-liability claim. Signed by Judge Rosemary Marquez on 7/29/22. (BAC)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Johnathon Cross, Plaintiff, 10 11 v. 12 Empressive Candles LLC, et al., 13 No. CV-20-00423-TUC-RM (MSA) ORDER Defendants. 14 15 On July 5, 2022, Magistrate Judge Maria S. Aguilera issued a Report and 16 Recommendation (Doc. 80) recommending that this Court grant Defendant’s Motion for 17 Summary Judgment (Doc. 75) on Plaintiff’s claim that Defendant is jointly and severally 18 liable and deny Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff’s strict-liability 19 claim. No objections to the Report and Recommendation were filed. 20 A district judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions” of a 21 magistrate judge’s “report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which 22 objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The advisory committee’s notes to Rule 23 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure state that, “[w]hen no timely objection is 24 filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record 25 in order to accept the recommendation” of a magistrate judge. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) 26 advisory committee’s note to 1983 addition. See also Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 27 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999) (“If no objection or only partial objection is made, the 28 district court judge reviews those unobjected portions for clear error.”); Prior v. Ryan, 1 CV 10-225-TUC-RCC, 2012 WL 1344286, at *1 (D. Ariz. Apr. 18, 2012) (reviewing for 2 clear error unobjected-to portions of Report and Recommendation). 3 The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge 4 Recommendation, the parties’ briefs, and the record. 5 Magistrate Judge Aguilera’s Report and Recommendation. Aguilera’s Report and The Court finds no error in 6 Accordingly, 7 IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 80) is accepted 8 and adopted in full. 9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment 10 (Doc. 75) is granted in part as denied in part as follows: the Motion is granted as to 11 Plaintiff’s claim that Defendant is jointly and severally liable and denied as to Plaintiff’s 12 strict-liability claim. 13 Dated this 29th day of July, 2022. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -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?