Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-00573/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-00573-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection 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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Diana Medina, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Brithe & Associates, PLC, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 13-573-PHX-SMM (BSB)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

AND ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Complaint alleging a violation of the Fair Debt

Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692 et seq. (Doc. 1.) This matter was

assigned and litigated before Magistrate Judge Bridget S. Bade. (Doc. 3.) On September 19,

2013, Magistrate Judge Bade filed a Report and Recommendation with this Court. (Doc. 13.)

To date, no objections have been filed.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

When reviewing a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, this Court must

“make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is

made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also Baxter

v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch.

Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983)). Failure to object to a Magistrate Judge’s

recommendation relieves the Court of conducting de novo review of the Magistrate Judge’s

factual findings; the Court then may decide the dispositive motion on the applicable law.

Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979) (citing Campbell v. United States

Case 2:13-cv-00573-BSB Document 14 Filed 11/26/13 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196 (9th Cir. 1974)).

By failing to object to a Report and Recommendation, a party waives its right to

challenge the Magistrate Judge’s factual findings, but not necessarily the Magistrate Judge’s

legal conclusions. Baxter, 923 F.2d at 1394; see also Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455

(9th Cir. 1998) (failure to object to a Magistrate Judge’s legal conclusion “is a factor to be

weighed in considering the propriety of finding waiver of an issue on appeal”); Martinez v.

Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing McCall v. Andrus, 628 F.2d 1185, 1187

(9th Cir. 1980)).

DISCUSSION

Having reviewed the legal conclusions of the Report and Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge, and no objections having been made by Defendant, the Court hereby

incorporates and adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED approving, incorporating, and adopting the Report and

Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Bridget S. Bade. (Doc. 13.)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment against

Defendant Brithe & Associates, PLC is GRANTED. (Doc. 12.)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall enter Judgment in favor of

Plaintiff Diana Medina and against Defendant Brithe & Associates, PLC, in the amount of

$4,362 ($1,000 plus $2,862 for attorney’s fees plus $500 for costs and non-taxable expenses).

The Judgment shall earn interest at the annual federal rate from the date of entry of the

Judgment until paid in full. 

DATED this 25th day of November, 2013.

cc: BSB

Case 2:13-cv-00573-BSB Document 14 Filed 11/26/13 Page 2 of 2