Hill v. Alpine Sherriff Department

Opinion

PERCY HILL also known as PERCY Case No.: 18cv2470-CAB-MDD EDWIN STOCKTON ORDER: (1) ADOPTING REPORT Plaintiff, AND RECOMMENDATION [Doc. v. No. 72]; (2) GRANTING MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS ALPINE SHERIFF DEPARTMENT, et [Doc. No. 69]; AND DISMISSING al., CASE WITH PREJUDICE Defendants.

On November 5, 2020 , Defendants filed a motion for terminating sanctions. [Doc. No. 69.]1 On December 2, 2020, Plaintiff filed an opposition. [Doc. No. 71.] On January 21, 2021, Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin prepared a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) recommending that the motion for terminating sanctions be granted and the case be dismissed with prejudice. [Doc. No. 72.] The Report also ordered that any objections were to be filed by February 9, 2021. [Report at 11.] To date, no 1 Defendants caption their motion as a motion to dismiss pursuant to FRCP 41(b), or alternatively to compel Plaintiff to be deposed. However, the Court construes the motion as a motion for terminating objection has been filed, nor have there been any requests for an extension of time in which to file an objection. A district court’s duties concerning a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and a respondent’s objections thereto are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the Federal rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When no objections are filed, the district court is not required to review the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The Court reviews de novo those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Id. However, “[t]he statute makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir.2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original). “Neither the Constitution nor the statute requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct.” Id. In the absence of timely objection, 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 advisory committee’s note (citing Campbel v. U.S. Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)). Here, neither party has timely filed objections to the Report. Having reviewed it, the Court finds that it is thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear error. Accordingly, the Court hereby (1) ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Dembin’s Report and Recommendation; (2) GRANTS the motion for terminating sanctions; and (3) dismisses the entire action with prejudice. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and CLOSE / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / the case. Dated: February 18, 2021 € ZL Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo United States District Judge