Perez v. Evolet's Painting Service LLC et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Luis Enrique Ramos Perez,
Plaintiff,
v.
Evolet's Painting Service LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
NO. CV-25-01886-PHX-SMM (ASB)
ORDER
This matter was assigned to Magistrate Judge Alison S. Bachus. (Doc. 6). On April
1, 2026, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) with this
Court.1 (Doc. 18). The Magistrate Judge recommends that this Court denies Plaintiff’s
Motion for Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs Against All Defendants (Doc. 16) with
leave to amend. 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
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
Case 2:25-cv-01886-SMM-ASB Document 19 Filed 04/20/26 Page 1 of 2

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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.
DISCUSSION2
Having reviewed the R&R of the Magistrate Judge, and no Objections having been
made by any party thereto, the Court hereby incorporates and adopts the R&R.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs. (Doc. 18).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and
Costs without prejudice and granting leave to re-file. (Doc. 16).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff may file an amended motion for
attorneys’ fees and costs on or before May 15, 2026 pursuant to LRCiv 54.2.
Dated this 20th day of April, 2026.
2 The factual and procedural history of this case is set forth in the Magistrate Judge’s
Report and Recommendation (Doc. 18).
Case 2:25-cv-01886-SMM-ASB Document 19 Filed 04/20/26 Page 2 of 2