Hill v. Alpine Sherriff Department

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 PERCY HILL also known as PERCY Case No.: 18cv2470-CAB-MDD EDWIN STOCKTON 12 ORDER: (1) ADOPTING REPORT Plaintiff, 13 AND RECOMMENDATION [Doc. v. No. 72]; (2) GRANTING MOTION 14 FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS ALPINE SHERIFF DEPARTMENT, et 15 [Doc. No. 69]; AND DISMISSING al., CASE WITH PREJUDICE 16 Defendants. 17

18 On November 5, 2020 , Defendants filed a motion for terminating sanctions. [Doc. 19 No. 69.]1 On December 2, 2020, Plaintiff filed an opposition. [Doc. No. 71.] On 20 January 21, 2021, Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin prepared a Report and 21 Recommendation (“Report”) recommending that the motion for terminating sanctions be 22 granted and the case be dismissed with prejudice. [Doc. No. 72.] The Report also ordered 23 that any objections were to be filed by February 9, 2021. [Report at 11.] To date, no 24 25 26 27 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 28 1 objection has been filed, nor have there been any requests for an extension of time in 2 which to file an objection. 3 A district court’s duties concerning a magistrate judge’s report and 4 recommendation and a respondent’s objections thereto are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the 5 Federal rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When no objections are 6 filed, the district court is not required to review the magistrate judge’s report and 7 recommendation. The Court reviews de novo those portions of the Report and 8 Recommendation to which objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court may 9 “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by 10 the magistrate judge.” Id. However, “[t]he statute makes it clear that the district judge 11 must review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo if objection is 12 made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th 13 Cir.2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original). “Neither the Constitution nor the statute 14 requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the 15 parties themselves accept as correct.” Id. In the absence of timely objection, the Court 16 “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to 17 accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note (citing 18 Campbel v. U.S. Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)). 19 Here, neither party has timely filed objections to the Report. Having reviewed it, 20 the Court finds that it is thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear error. 21 Accordingly, the Court hereby (1) ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Dembin’s Report and 22 Recommendation; (2) GRANTS the motion for terminating sanctions; and (3) dismisses 23 the entire action with prejudice. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and CLOSE 24 / / / / / 25 / / / / / 26 / / / / / 27 / / / / / 28 / / / / / 1 || the case. 3 Dated: February 18, 2021 € ZL 4 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 5 United States District Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28