Rodriguez v. County of San Diego
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Myron James Lorenz (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation recommending terminating sanctions against the plaintiff for discovery violations. The court adopted the R&R, dismissed the action with prejudice, and ordered the plaintiff to pay costs and attorneys' fees.
| What the court decided | Standard it applied | The model |
|---|---|---|
Adoption of 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 an unobjected-to R&R. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Ninth Circuit precedent, while de novo review is required for objected portions, the district court retains the discretion to review the entire R&R for clear error or to adopt it without further review when no objections are filed. The court's citation to *Thomas v. Arn* and *United States v. Reyna-Tapia* supports the conclusion that the lack of objections permits the court to adopt the recommendation. |
Granting of Motion for Terminating Sanctions“Defendant’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions; or in the Alternative, Evidentiary Sanctions (doc. no. 24) is granted.” | unclear | agree with court The order recites that the motion was based on the plaintiff's repeated failure to appear for depositions, failure to respond to written discovery, and failure to pay monetary sanctions. While the order does not explicitly state the Rule 37(b)(2) standard (willfulness, bad faith, or substantial prejudice), the adoption of the R&R implies the Magistrate Judge found these factors met. Given the recited facts of repeated non-compliance over six months and non-payment of prior sanctions, the decision to grant terminating sanctions is consistent with federal law. |
Dismissal of Action with Prejudice“This action is dismissed with prejudice.” | unclear | agree with court Dismissal with prejudice is a permissible terminating sanction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(iii) for failure to comply with a court order. The court's decision follows directly from the grant of the motion for terminating sanctions. |
Award of Costs and Attorneys' Fees“Plaintiff shall pay Defendants costs and attorneys’ fees in the sum of $7,687.70.” | unclear | agree with court The award of costs and fees is a standard component of terminating sanctions under Rule 37(b)(2)(C). The specific amount is adopted from the R&R. Without the underlying R&R text, the specific calculation cannot be verified, but the authority to award such fees is clear. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the standard of review for an unobjected-to R&R, citing the relevant statute and controlling Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit precedent. The court explicitly states that no objections were filed and therefore adopts the R&R. The resulting sanctions (dismissal with prejudice and fees) are standard consequences of granting a motion for terminating sanctions under Rule 37. The reasoning is concise but legally accurate for the procedural posture.
Opinion
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