Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01862/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01862-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Employment Discrimination

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JUNGRYEA SHIN

Plaintifff,

v.

BENIHANA, INC.,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 10cv1862 AJB (WVG)

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).

1 10cv1862

Case 3:10-cv-01862-AJB-WVG Document 33 Filed 11/01/12 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

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.

DATED: November 1, 2012

Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia

U.S. District Judge

I:\Chambers Battaglia\DJ CASES\Even Numbers - Erin's Cases\Shin\10cv1862.Shin.Order.Adopt.R&R.No.Objections.wpd 2 10cv1862

Case 3:10-cv-01862-AJB-WVG Document 33 Filed 11/01/12 Page 2 of 2