Smith v. November Bar N Grill LLC

6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Crystal Smith, No. CV-18-00490-TUC-RM (MSA) 10 Plaintiff, ORDER v. November Bar N Grill LLC, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 On December 26, 2019, Magistrate Judge Maria S. Aguilera issued a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 99) recommending that this Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 82), partially grant Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 84) to the extent Defendants challenge Plaintiff’s claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (Counts One and Two of the Amended Complaint (Doc. 37)), and decline supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims under the Arizona Minimum Wage Act and Arizona Wage Act (Counts Three and Four). No objections to the Report and Recommendation were filed.

23 A district judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions” of a magistrate judge’s “report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The advisory committee’s notes to Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure state that, “[w]hen no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation” of a magistrate judge. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) || advisory committee’s note to 1983 addition. See also Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 2|| F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999) (“If no objection or only partial objection 1s made, the || district court judge reviews those unobjected portions for clear error.”); Prior v. Ryan, 4) CV 10-225-TUC-RCC, 2012 WL 1344286, at *1 (D. Ariz. Apr. 18, 2012) (reviewing for || clear error unobjected-to portions of Report and Recommendation).

6 The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation, the parties’ briefs, and || the record. The Court finds no error in the Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, || the Court will adopt the Report and Recommendation in full.

9 IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 99) is accepted || and adopted in full.

11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that: 12 (1) Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 82) is denied.

13 (2) Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 84) is granted as to 14 Plaintiff's claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff's claims under 15 the Fair Labor Standards Act are dismissed with prejudice.

16 (3) The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims 17 under the Arizona Minimum Wage Act and the Arizona Wage Act. Plaintiffs 18 claims under the Arizona Minimum Wage Act and the Arizona Wage Act are 19 dismissed without prejudice.

20 (4) The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this 21 case.

22 (5) The Clerk of Court is further directed to mail a copy of this Order to Crystal 23 Smith at 5445 N. Shannon Rd. #3, Tucson, AZ 85705.

24 Dated this 24th day of February, 2020.

Zyl?

28 TD (fate Z = Honorable Rosthary Mafquez United States District Iidge _2-