Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

McBee v. Security Credit Systems

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY


March 29, 2010

RHONDA MCBEE, PLAINTIFF,
v.
SECURITY CREDIT SYSTEMS, DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: William J. Martini, U.S.D.J.

HON. WILLIAM J. MARTINI

OPINION

Before the Court is the report and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge below recommending granting Defendant Security Credit Systems' motion to dismiss. The basis for the recommendation was Plaintiff's failure to comply with discovery obligations, even after an express warning from the Court that should she continue to fail to comply she risked dismissal of her action with prejudice. Even after being warned, Plaintiff did not comply with her discovery obligations. Thereafter, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss. Plaintiff filed no opposition brief and Plaintiff filed no objections to the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation.

With respect to dispositive motions, such as Plaintiff's motion to dismiss, the district court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the magistrate judge's Report to which a litigant has filed an objection. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); L. Civ. R. 72.1(c)(2). When no objections are made in regard to a report or parts thereof, the District Court will adopt the report and accept the recommendation if it is "satisf[ied] ... that there is no clear error on the face of the record." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 Advisory Committee's Notes (citation omitted); see Peerless Ins. Co. v. Ambi-Rad, Ltd., Civil Action No. 07-5402, 2009 WL 790898, at *3 (D.N.J. 2009).

Having examined the report and recommendation and the filings of the parties, the Court is satisfied that the Magistrate Judge below correctly applied Poulis v. State Farm & Cas. Co., 747 F.3d 863 (3d Cir. 1984), to the facts of this case. The sanction of dismissal was appropriate where, as here, Plaintiff failed to comply with her discovery obligations after having been expressly warned that failure risked dismissal of her action.

The Court ADOPTS the report and recommendation, GRANTS the motion, and DISMISSES this action.

An appropriate order follows.

20100329

© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.