Rodriguez v. County of San Diego ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JULIE RODRIGUEZ, Case No.: 3:19-cv-424-L-MDD 12 Plaintiff, ORDER (1) ADOPTING REPORT 13 v. AND RECOMMENDATION; (2) DISMISSING ACTION WITH 14 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO et al., PREJUDICE; AND (3) AWARDING 15 Defendants. COSTS AND ATTORNEYS’ FEES 16 17 Pending before the Court in this action alleging excessive force by San Diego 18 County Sheriff’s Deputies is a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) issued by 19 Magistrate Mitchell D. Dembin (doc. no. 31), recommending to grant is Defendants' 20 motion for terminating sanctions, or in the alternative, evidentiary sanctions (doc. no. 24). 21 Defendants’ motion is based on Plaintiff’s repeated failure to appear for deposition over 22 the course of six months, failure to respond to written discovery, and failure to pay 23 monetary sanctions. No objections have been filed to the R&R. 24 A district judge "may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition" on a 25 dispositive matter prepared by a magistrate judge proceeding without the consent of the 26 parties for all purposes. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). "[T]he court 27 shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] 28 to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When no objections are filed, the de 1 novo review is waived. Section 636(b)(1) does not require review by the district court 2 ||under a lesser standard. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). The "statute 3 ||makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge's findings and 4 recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise." United States v. 5 || Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original). 6 In the absence of objections, the Court adopts the R&R. Accordingly, Defendant’s 7 || Motion for Terminating Sanctions; or in the Alternative, Evidentiary Sanctions (doc. no. 8 ||24) is granted. This action is dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff shall pay Defendants 9 || costs and attorneys’ fees in the sum of $7,687.70. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 12 Dated: September 2, 2020 1 fee fp 14 H . James Lorenz, 15 United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28