McLaughlin v. Barron

Background

Don Alan McLaughlin sued various defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of rights under the Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, Eighth, and Ninth Amendments. The opinion does not explain the substance of those claims in detail.

McLaughlin filed an initial complaint, an amended complaint, and then a second amended complaint. The court had previously dismissed claims against some defendants, including Chong, Bradley, Formosa, and John Does 1–5. The second amended complaint was the operative complaint addressed by this order.

Discovery history

The magistrate judge, Paul E. Davison, handled pretrial matters. McLaughlin repeatedly failed to appear at conferences and did not complete court-ordered discovery within the deadlines. The court extended the deadlines several times and directed McLaughlin to appear for a deposition.

McLaughlin did not appear for depositions scheduled for May 14, 2019, and June 24, 2019. Before the second scheduled deposition, the court warned him that failing to comply with its directive could result in dismissal. McLaughlin also failed to appear at a June 11, 2019 discovery conference. The defendants moved to dismiss, and McLaughlin did not file opposition papers despite receiving an extension of time.

Report and recommendation

On December 9, 2019, Magistrate Judge Davison recommended dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37. That rule permits sanctions, including dismissal, when a party disobeys a discovery order or fails to appear for that person’s deposition. The recommendation described McLaughlin’s delays, failures to comply with discovery orders, and repeated failures to appear for depositions.

The report and recommendation gave the parties 17 days to object and warned that failing to object would waive the right to object. No objections or extension request was filed. The district court therefore stated that the parties had waived the right to object to the recommendation or obtain appellate review.

Ruling

Judge Nelson S. Roman reviewed the recommendation despite the lack of objections, found it well reasoned and supported by the facts and law, and found no clear error. The court adopted the report and recommendation in its entirety.

The court dismissed McLaughlin’s second amended complaint for his willful failure to comply with discovery orders and failure to appear for a deposition. It directed the clerk to terminate the action, mail McLaughlin a copy of the order at his last known address, and record proof of service on the docket.