ORDER (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; (2) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS; AND (3) DISMISSING WITH PREJUDICE PLAINTIFFS TANYA A., ANGELA C., BERENIZ F., KATELYNN D., DIANA D., TIANA E., MARITZA G., BRIANNA H., EMILIA J., CLARISSA J., AND MARIYA W.

M. JAMES LORENZ, District Judge.

In this action for violation of constitutional rights filed by nude entertainment dancers against the City of San Diego and the Chief of the San Diego Police Department, Defendants moved for terminating sanctions pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 30 and 37 against certain named Plaintiffs. Magistrate Judge Andrew G. Schopler issued a report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Civil Local Rule 72.1(d), recommending to grant in part the unopposed motion. For the reasons stated below, the report and recommendation is adopted. All claims brought by Plaintiffs Tanya A., Angela C., Bereniz F., Katelynn D., Diana D., Tiana E., Maritza G., Brianna H., Emilia J., Clarissa J., and Mariya W. are dismissed with prejudice. Defendants' motion is denied in all other respects.

In their motion, Defendants asserted that certain Plaintiffs had failed to appear at their respective depositions, respond to written discovery requests, and otherwise cooperate in discovery and prosecute their cases. (Doc. no. 81.) Plaintiffs did not oppose the motion. On October 11, 2017, Judge Schopler held a hearing. Counsel for both sides appeared, and submitted to his tentative ruling to recommend dismissals, and denying other requested sanctions. (Doc. no. 108.) On the same date, Judge Schopler issued a minute order summarizing his report and recommendation, and setting a briefing schedule for any objections. (Doc. no. 90.) The time to file objections expired on October 27, 2017. No objections have been filed.

A district judge "may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition" on a dispositive matter prepared by a magistrate judge proceeding without the consent of the parties for all purposes. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). "The court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When no objections are filed, de novo review is waived. Section 636(b)(1) does not require review by the district court under a lesser standard. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). The "statute makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise." United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original).

In the absence of objections, the Court adopts Judge Schopler's report and recommendation. Accordingly, Defendants' motion for terminating sanctions (doc. no. 81) is granted in part and denied in part. All claims brought by Plaintiffs Tanya A., Angela C., Bereniz F., Katelynn D., Diana D., Tiana E., Maritza G., Brianna H., Emilia J., Clarissa J., and Mariya W. are dismissed with prejudice. In all other respects, Defendants' motion is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.