Harper v. Del Toro
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Myron James Lorenz (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation to dismiss an employment discrimination action for the plaintiff's failure to comply with court orders. The court adopted the R&R and dismissed the action without prejudice.
| What the court decided | Standard it applied | The model |
|---|---|---|
Adoption of the Report and Recommendation“In the absence of objections, the Court adopts the R&R.” | de novo | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard of review for a Report and Recommendation. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Ninth Circuit precedent (United States v. Reyna-Tapia), when no objections are filed to a magistrate judge's R&R, the district court is not required to conduct a de novo review, though it may do so. The court's decision to adopt the R&R in the absence of objections is procedurally correct. |
Dismissal of the action“Accordingly, this action is dismissed without prejudice.” | de novo | agree with court The dismissal is based on the Magistrate Judge's findings that the plaintiff repeatedly failed to comply with court orders, including discovery orders and pretrial conferences. While the order does not detail the specific findings of the R&R, it recites the basis for the recommendation (Rule 16(f) and 37(b) violations). Dismissal without prejudice is a standard sanction for failure to prosecute or comply with discovery orders when the court deems it appropriate. The court's adoption of this sanction is consistent with the procedural posture described. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the standard of review for a Report and Recommendation in the absence of objections. It cites the correct statutory and case law authorities (28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), Thomas v. Arn, and United States v. Reyna-Tapia) to support its decision to adopt the R&R. The reasoning is concise but legally sufficient for a procedural order adopting an unobjected-to R&R.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 RITA HARPER, CASE NO. 3:23-cv-1541-L-BLM 13 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND 14 v. DISMISSING ACTION 15 CARLOS DEL TORO, in his official capacity as Secretary of the United States [ECF NO. 38] 16 Navy, et al., 17 Defendants. 18 19 Pending before the Court in this employment discrimination action is a Report and 20 Recommendation (“R&R”) issued by Magistrate Judge Barbara L. Major (ECF No. 38), 21 recommending dismissal of this action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16(f) 22 and 37(b) based on Plaintiff’s repeated knowing, intentional, and willful failure to 23 comply with orders of the Court, including discovery orders, and failure to appear at 24 pretrial conferences. No objections have been filed to the R&R. 25 A district judge "may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition" on a 26 dispositive matter prepared by a magistrate judge proceeding without the consent of the 27 parties for all purposes. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). "[T]he court 28 shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] 1 || to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When no objections are filed, the de 2 ||novo review is waived. Section 636(b)(1) does not require review by the district court 3 under a lesser standard. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). The "statute 4 || makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge's findings and 5 recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise." United States v. 6 || Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original). 7 In the absence of objections, the Court adopts the R&R. Accordingly, this action is 8 || dismissed without prejudice. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 11 ||Dated: February 12, 2025 pee ep? 13 H . James Lorenz, 14 United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28