From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Shin v. Benihana, Inc.

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, S.D. California
Nov 1, 2012
Civil 10cv1862 AJB (WVG) (S.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2012)

Opinion


JUNGRYEA SHIN Plaintiff, v. BENIHANA, INC., Defendant. Civil No. 10cv1862 AJB (WVG). United States District Court, S.D. California. November 1, 2012.

          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]

          ANTHONY J. BATTAGLIA, District Judge.

         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.


Summaries of

Shin v. Benihana, Inc.

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, S.D. California
Nov 1, 2012
Civil 10cv1862 AJB (WVG) (S.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2012)
Case details for

Shin v. Benihana, Inc.

Case Details

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

Court:United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, S.D. California

Date published: Nov 1, 2012

Citations

Civil 10cv1862 AJB (WVG) (S.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2012)