UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
November 1, 2012
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia U.S. District Judge
ORDER: (1) ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION [Doc. ) No. 30]; AND (2)
DISMISSING WITH ) PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS FOR
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF
EMOTIONAL DISTRESS [Doc. No. 30]
Presently before the Court is a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") issued by Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo recommending the Court dismiss with prejudice the Plaintiff's claims for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(A)(ii). (R&R, Doc. No. 30.)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district judge's duties in connection with a magistrate judge's report and recommendation. The district judge must "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 finding or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). However, in the absence of timely objection(s), 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(b), Advisory Committee Notes (1983); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003).
Neither party has timely filed objections to Magistrate Judge Gallo's R&R. (See R&R, Doc. No. 30, (objections due by October 25, 2012).) Having reviewed the R&R, the Court finds that Magistrate Judge Gallo's R&R is thorough, well reasoned, and contains no clear error. Accordingly, the Court hereby: (1) ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Gallo's R&R; and (2) Dismisses with Prejudice Plaintiff's claims for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(A)(ii), because the Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently respond to Defendant's discovery requests despite a Court order to do so.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.