From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rodriguez v. Cnty. of San Diego

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Sep 2, 2020
Case No.: 3:19-cv-424-L-MDD (S.D. Cal. Sep. 2, 2020)

Opinion

Case No.: 3:19-cv-424-L-MDD

09-02-2020

JULIE RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO et al., Defendants.


ORDER (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; (2) DISMISSING ACTION WITH PREJUDICE; AND (3) AWARDING COSTS AND ATTORNEYS' FEES

Pending before the Court in this action alleging excessive force by San Diego County Sheriff's Deputies is a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") issued by Magistrate Mitchell D. Dembin (doc. no. 31), recommending to grant is Defendants' motion for terminating sanctions, or in the alternative, evidentiary sanctions (doc. no. 24). Defendants' motion is based on Plaintiff's repeated failure to appear for deposition over the course of six months, failure to respond to written discovery, and failure to pay monetary sanctions. No objections have been filed to the R&R.

A district judge "may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition" on a dispositive matter prepared by a magistrate judge proceeding without the consent of the parties for all purposes. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). "[T]he court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When no objections are filed, the de novo review is waived. Section 636(b)(1) does not require review by the district court under a lesser standard. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). The "statute makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise." United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original).

In the absence of objections, the Court adopts the R&R. Accordingly, Defendant's Motion for Terminating Sanctions; or in the Alternative, Evidentiary Sanctions (doc. no. 24) is granted. This action is dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff shall pay Defendants costs and attorneys' fees in the sum of $7,687.70.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 2, 2020

/s/_________

Hon M. James Lorenz

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Rodriguez v. Cnty. of San Diego

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Sep 2, 2020
Case No.: 3:19-cv-424-L-MDD (S.D. Cal. Sep. 2, 2020)
Case details for

Rodriguez v. Cnty. of San Diego

Case Details

Full title:JULIE RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Sep 2, 2020

Citations

Case No.: 3:19-cv-424-L-MDD (S.D. Cal. Sep. 2, 2020)

Citing Cases

Elizondo v. Seaworld Parks & Entm't, Inc.

Terminating sanctions are "severe and are only justified where the failure to produce stems from the…

Dr. Lokesh Tantuwaya MD, Inc. v. JetSuite, Inc.

, No. 19-CV-0424-L-MDD, 2020 WL 4696734, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 2020) (citing Dreith v. Nu Image, Inc., 648…