Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_18-cv-00490/USCOURTS-azd-4_18-cv-00490-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Fair Labor Standards

---

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

Crystal Smith,

Plaintiff,

v. 

November Bar N Grill LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-18-00490-TUC-RM (MSA)

ORDER 

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.

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) 

Case 4:18-cv-00490-RM-MSA Document 103 Filed 02/25/20 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

advisory committee’s note to 1983 addition. See also Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 

F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999) (“If no objection or only partial objection is made, the 

district court judge reviews those unobjected portions for clear error.”); Prior v. Ryan, 

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).

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.

IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 99) is accepted 

and adopted in full.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:

(1) Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 82) is denied. 

(2) Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 84) is granted as to 

Plaintiff’s claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff’s claims under 

the Fair Labor Standards Act are dismissed with prejudice.

(3) The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims 

under the Arizona Minimum Wage Act and the Arizona Wage Act. Plaintiff’s 

claims under the Arizona Minimum Wage Act and the Arizona Wage Act are 

dismissed without prejudice.

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

case.

(5) The Clerk of Court is further directed to mail a copy of this Order to Crystal 

Smith at 5445 N. Shannon Rd. #3, Tucson, AZ 85705.

Dated this 24th day of February, 2020.

Case 4:18-cv-00490-RM-MSA Document 103 Filed 02/25/20 Page 2 of 2