UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
December 28, 2006
LINDA J. ROBBINS, PLAINTIFF,
RICK A. ABELSON, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller United States District Judge
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Defendant removed this medical malpractice action from state court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. On October 13, 2006, United States Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") recommending that this Court grant Defendant's motion for terminating sanctions and dismissal of the case pursuant to Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The parties were given until November 13, 2006 to file any written objections, and replies to objections were to be filed no later than November 22, 2006. To date neither party has filed any objections.
The duties of the district court in connection with a Magistrate Judge's R&R are set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636. The district court "shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made, and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 676 (1980). Having conducted a de novo review of the papers submitted, the court finds the R&R presents a thorough and sound analysis of the issues raised by the parties. The R&R properly found that Plaintiff has demonstrated a pattern of noncompliance with court orders and discovery obligations. Specifically, Plaintiff has failed to attend her deposition in violation of a court order, and she has also failed to pay monetary sanctions issued against her. In addition, the court's repeated attempts to contact Plaintiff's counsel have gone unheeded. Finally, the R&R properly found that no less drastic sanction other than dismissal is appropriate in this case.
For the foregoing reasons, the court ADOPTS in whole the findings and conclusion contained in the Report and Recommendation, which is incorporated herein by reference. See Docket No. 34. Accordingly, the court DISMISSES Plaintiff's complaint without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2007 VersusLaw Inc.