Pritikin ICR LLC v. Apricus Health MSO LLC

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

9 Pritikin ICR LLC, No. CV-23-00592-PHX-JZB 10 Plaintiff, ORDER v. Apricus Health MSO LLC, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 This matter was assigned to Magistrate Judge John Z. Boyle. (Doc. 4). On February 29, 2024, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation with this Court.1 (Doc. 18). The Magistrate Judge has recommended that Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment be granted. To date, no objections have been filed.

1 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 22 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) 23 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 25 Recommendation for the Chief United States District Judge or designee.

26 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED designating the following District Court Judges to review and, if deemed suitable, to sign the order of dismissal on 27 my behalf: 28 Phoenix/Prescott: Senior United States District Judge Stephen M.

McNamee 1 STANDARD OF REVIEW 2 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. 12 DISCUSSION 13 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.

16 CONCLUSION 17 Accordingly, for the reasons set forth, 18 IT IS ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. (Doc. 18).

20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment.

21 (Docs. 14, 15).

22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED awarding Plaintiff $529,900.00 against Defendants, jointly and severally, together with pre-judgment interest at the rate of 6.9% from August 8, 2023.

25 /// /// /// /// 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff has no later than April 2, 2024 to file || an application for attorneys’ fees and costs.

3 Dated this 18th day of March, 2024.

5 □□□ Z.. Br aera 6 Hdhorable Stephen M. McNamee Senior United States District Judge -3-