From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Shin v. Benihana, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Nov 1, 2012
Civil No. 10cv1862 AJB (WVG) (S.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2012)

Opinion

Civil No. 10cv1862 AJB (WVG)

11-01-2012

JUNGRYEA SHIN Plaintifff, v. BENIHANA, INC., Defendant.


ORDER: (1) ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION [Doc.

No. 30]; AND (2) DISMISSING WITH

PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS

FOR INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF

EMOTIONAL DISTRESS


[Doc. No. 30]

Presently before the Court is a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") issued by Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo recommending the Court dismiss with prejudice the Plaintiff's claims for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(A)(ii). (R&R, Doc. No. 30.)

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district judge's duties in connection with a magistrate judge's report and recommendation. The district judge 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 finding or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). However, in the absence of timely objection(s), the Court "need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee Notes (1983); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003).

Neither party has timely filed objections to Magistrate Judge Gallo's R&R. (See R&R, Doc. No. 30, (objections due by October 25, 2012).) Having reviewed the R&R, the Court finds that Magistrate Judge Gallo's R&R is thorough, well reasoned, and contains no clear error. Accordingly, the Court hereby: (1) ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Gallo's R&R; and (2) Dismisses with Prejudice Plaintiff's claims for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(A)(ii), because the Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently respond to Defendant's discovery requests despite a Court order to do so.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

_________________

Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia

U.S. District Judge


Summaries of

Shin v. Benihana, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Nov 1, 2012
Civil No. 10cv1862 AJB (WVG) (S.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2012)
Case details for

Shin v. Benihana, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:JUNGRYEA SHIN Plaintifff, v. BENIHANA, INC., Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Nov 1, 2012

Citations

Civil No. 10cv1862 AJB (WVG) (S.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2012)