(PS) Claire v. County of Sutter

District Court, E.D. California·Decided June 12, 2024·No. 2:22-cv-00780·Unknown

Opinion

ROUBLE P. CLAIRE, an individual, No. 2:22-cv-00780-TLN-AC Plaintiff, v. ORDER Defendant. This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Terminating Discovery Sanctions. (ECF No. 46.) This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On April 4, 2024, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on all parties, and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. (ECF No. 50.) The time to file objections has passed, and neither party filed any objections. The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Having reviewed the file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The findings and recommendations, filed April 11, 2024 (ECF No. 50), are ADOPTED IN FULL; 2. Plaintiff's Motion for Terminating Sanctions (ECF No. 46) is GRANTED; and 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter default judgment against Defendant Sara Hollis in an amount to be determined by separate motion. Date: June 11, 2024

Troy L. Nuhley United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

(PS) Claire v. County of Sutter, (E.D. Cal. 2024).

(PS) Claire v. County of Sutter ((PS) Claire v. County of Sutter) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Alumino-Thermic Corp. v. Goldschmidt Thermit Co.
25 F.2d 206 (Third Circuit, 1928)