Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-02111/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-02111-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 362
Nature of Suit: Medical Malpractice
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Medical Malpractice

---

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

- 1 - 05cv2111

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LINDA J. ROBBINS,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 05 CV 2111 JM (NLS)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT 

vs. AND RECOMMENDATION

RICK A. ABELSON,

Defendant.

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,

Case 3:05-cv-02111-JM-NLS Document 42 Filed 12/28/06 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

- 2 - 05cv2111

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.

DATED: December 28, 2006

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

cc: Magistrate Judge Stormes 

All Parties 

Case 3:05-cv-02111-JM-NLS Document 42 Filed 12/28/06 Page 2 of 2