Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_22-cv-00304/USCOURTS-azd-2_22-cv-00304-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29:201 Fair Labor Standards Act

---

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

Alphonso McDuffy,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Tow Mate Towing LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-22-00304-PHX-SMM (ASB)

ORDER 

This matter was assigned to Magistrate Judge Alison S. Bachus. (Doc. 36). On

October 10, 2023, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation with this 

Court.1(Doc. 44). To date, no objections have been filed.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 

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 2:22-cv-00304-SMM-ASB Document 45 Filed 10/30/23 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

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.

DISCUSSION

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.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth,

IT IS ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate 

Judge. (Doc. 44).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees. 

(Doc. 40).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED awarding Plaintiff $9,555.00 in attorney’s fees and 

$824.00 in costs, for a total of $10,379.00. This award excludes a total of 4.3 total hours in 

attorney’s fees and $2,000 in “anticipated” post-judgment fees. This award is in addition 

to the statutory damages previously awarded by the Court in Doc. 42.

Dated this 30th day of October, 2023.

Case 2:22-cv-00304-SMM-ASB Document 45 Filed 10/30/23 Page 2 of 2