Harper v. Del Toro

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