Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00691/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00691-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 

---

1

15cv691-CAB-BLM

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

LAURA ALEXIS, an individual,

Plaintiff,

v.

JAMES B. ROGERS, an individual; 

GLADYS HOLDINGS, LLC, a New 

York Limited Liability Corporation; 

BEELAND INTERESTS, INC., a 

Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 - 50, 

inclusive,

Defendant.

Case No.: 15cv691-CAB-BLM

ORDER: (1) ADOPTING REPORT 

AND RECOMMENDATION [Doc.

No. 103]; and (2) GRANTING 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR 

TERMINATING SANCTIONS 

AGAINST PLAINTIFF [Doc. No. 99]

Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of 

Magistrate Barbara L. Major, filed on May 12, 2017, recommending that the Court grant 

Defendants’ motion for terminating sanctions against Plaintiff. [Doc. No. 103.] 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district 

court’s duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The 

district court must “make a de novo determination of those portion 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 judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also 

Case 3:15-cv-00691-CAB-BLM Document 105 Filed 05/30/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

15cv691-CAB-BLM

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 v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673-76 (1980); United States v. Remsing, 874 

F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). However, in the absence of timely objection, 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.Cvi.P. 72 advisory committee’s note (citing 

Campbel v. U.S. Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)); see also United States v. 

Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)(“[T]he district judge must review the 

magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not 

otherwise.”).

Here, neither party has timely filed objections to Magistrate Judge Major’s R&R. 

[See Doc. No. 103 at 21 (objections due by May 26, 2017).] Having reviewed the R&R, 

the Court finds that it is thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear error. 

Accordingly, the Court hereby: (1) ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Major’s Report and 

Recommendation; and (2) GRANTS Defendants’ motion for terminating sanctions 

against Plaintiff. 

The complaint is HEREBY DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk shall 

close the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 30, 2017

Case 3:15-cv-00691-CAB-BLM Document 105 Filed 05/30/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2