Opinion
1:23-cv-00004-JMK-MMS
05-07-2024
STATE OF ALASKA, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, DIVISION OF INVESTMENTS, Plaintiff, v. FV MARSHA ANN (Official No. 907753), in rem; JACOB G. RODRIGUEZ, in personam, Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
JOSHUA M. KINDRED, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
The State of Alaska initiated this action on June 9, 2023.Pursuant to the Local Magistrate Rules, this Court referred the matter to Chief Magistrate Judge Scoble.Beginning in September 2023, the docket reflects a series of clerk's notices and annotations addressing the State of Alaska's deficient pleadings.On October 24, 2023, Judge Scoble issued a substantive order addressing the proper procedure for an entry of default. At Docket 10, Judge Scoble directed the State of Alaska to file a motion for entry of default in compliance with the Local and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The State of Alaska did not submit a new motion. On November 29, 2023, Judge Scoble issued the Report and Recommendation at Docket 11, in which he recommended the Complaint at Docket 1 be dismissed for failure to prosecute. The State of Alaska objects at Docket 12.
Docket 1.
Docket 4.
Dockets and Docket Annotations 6-9.
Docket 10.
The matter is now before this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). That statute provides that a district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”A court is to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the magistrate judge's report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” But as to those topics on which no objections are filed, “[n]either the Constitution nor [28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)] requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct.”
Id.
United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (“It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate's factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.”).
The State of Alaska broadly objects to Judge Scoble's recommendation to dismiss the complaint for lack of prosecution. The State of Alaska agrees that it erred when filing prior pleadings and attaches a Motion for Entry of Default for submission. Furthermore, the State of Alaska counters that “at most, only two [of the Henderson] factors support dismissal here.”
Docket 12 at 1; Docket 12-1.
Docket 12 at 2-5.
Upon its review, the Court finds the State of Alaska's objections unpersuasive. The Court does recognize that Judge Scoble's Order at Docket 10 does not articulate a filing deadline. Regardless, Judge Scoble's Order at Docket 10 terminated the State of Alaska's prior motion. Further, the Order at Docket 10 directed the State of Alaska to refile its motion in accordance with the rules. Judge Scoble ordered corrective action; ergo, the time to remedy was immediate. Requiring parties to adhere to procedural rules assists in the efficient administration of justice.Further, a district court must manage its docket to facilitate “the orderly and expeditious disposition” of all of the cases brought before it.It cannot replace the role of counsel as either protector or advocate.The Court finds that the first, second, third, and fifth Henderson factors were met.
United States v. Ramos, 65 F.4th 427, 434 (9th Cir. 2023) (articulating that “the district court ha[s] no obligation to provide individualized analysis of each objection.”).
Ready Transp., Inc. v. AAR Mfg., Inc., 627 F.3d 402, 404 (9th Cir. 2010) (reaffirming the principle that a district court has the inherent power to control its docket).
Dietz v. Bouldin, 579 U.S. 40, 45 (2016).
But see Docket 12 at 5.
Magistrate Judge Scoble recommended that the Court dismiss the Complaint for lack of prosecution. The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation and agrees with the analysis. Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation at Dockets 11, and IT IS ORDERED that this matter is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Clerk of Court shall enter a final judgment.
IT IS SO ORDERED.