Khalaj v. Phoenix, City of

— 1 — — 2 — — 3 — — 4 — — 5 — 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA — 8 — 9 David Khalaj, et al., No. CV-17-01199-PHX-GMS (JZB) 10 Plaintiffs, ORDER 11 v. 12 City of Phoenix, et al., 13 Respondents. — 14 — — 15 — 16 Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of 17 Magistrate Judge John Z. Boyle (Doc. 318) regarding Magistrate Judge Boyle’s Order 18 (Doc. 230) granting Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 129). The R&R recommends 19 that the District Court adopt Judge Boyle’s Order (Doc. 230) granting Defendants’ Motion 20 for Sanctions; grant Defendants’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees (Doc. 275) to the extent 21 provided in the R&R; and, award Defendants attorneys’ fees and costs to be assessed 22 against Plaintiffs to the extent provided in the R&R. No objections were filed. 23 The absence of a timely objection means that error may not be assigned on appeal 24 to any defect in the rulings of the Magistrate Judge on any non-dispositive matters. Fed. 25 R. Civ. P. 72(a) (“A party may serve and file objections to the order within 14 days after 26 being served with a copy [of the magistrate’s order]. A party may not assign as error a 27 defect in the order not timely objected to.”); Simpson v. Lear Astronics Corp., 77 F.3d 28 1170, 1174 (9th Cir. 1996); Phillips v. GMC, 289 F.3d 1117 , 1120–21 (9th Cir. 2002). 1 Notwithstanding the absence of an objection, the Court has reviewed the R&R and 2|| finds that it is well taken. The Court will accept the R&R and adopt Magistrate Judge Boyle’s Order granting Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions; grant Defendants’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees (Doc. 275) to the extent provided in the R&R; and, award Defendants 5|| attorneys’ fees and costs to be assessed against Plaintiffs. See 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1) 6|| (stating that the district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the 7\| findings or recommendations made by the magistrate”). 8 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the 9|| Magistrate Judge (Doc. 318) is accepted. 10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED adopting the Magistrate Judge’s January 22, 2021 11 || Order (Doc. 230) granting Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 219), pursuant to LRCiv 72.2(a)(1). 13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Defendants’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees (Doc. 275) to the extent provided in the R&R. 15 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Defendants be awarded $21,047.50 in attorneys’ fees and $2,034.90 in costs, for a total award of $23,082.40 to be assessed against 17 || Plaintiffs. 18 Dated this 24th day of March, 2022. 19 W, 20 A Whacrsay Fotos 9] Chief United States District Judge — 22 — — 23 — — 24 — — 25 — — 26 — — 27 — — 28 — _2-