Kaulia v. Ezra et al

Filing 20

ORDER READOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION AND DIRECTING REENTRY OF JUDGMENT. Signed by JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY on 10/10/13. "The court readopts the Magistrate Judge's well-reasoned F & R in full. The Clerk of C ourt is directed to reenter judgment against Kaulia and to close this case." (gls, )CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
DENNIS J. KAULIA,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
JUDGE DAVID EZRA, et al.
)
)
Defendants.
)
_____________________________ )

CIV. NO. 13-00106 SOM/BMK
ORDER READOPTING MAGISTRATE
JUDGE’S FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATION AND DIRECTING
REENTRY OF JUDGMENT

ORDER READOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S FINDINGS
AND RECOMMENDATION AND DIRECTING REENTRY OF JUDGMENT
I.

INTRODUCTION
On September 10, 2013, Magistrate Judge Barry M. Kurren

issued his Findings and Recommendation to Dismiss [Plaintiff
Dennis Kaulia’s] Action(“F & R”) because of Kaulia’s failure to
prosecute his case.

This court, having received no timely

objection, adopted the F & R and entered judgement against
Kaulia.

The same day, Kaulia submitted a “charging sheet,” which

the court deems to be a timely objection to the F & R.

This

court therefore vacates the order adopting the F & R and its
entry of judgment against Kaulia.

However, after reviewing the F

& R and the record in this case de novo, this court readopts the
Magistrate Judge’s F & R and reenters judgment against Kaulia.
II.

BACKGROUND.
On March 4, 2013, Kaulia filed his complaint in this

case but failed to serve Defendants within 120 days of its

filing, pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

Kaulia then failed to attend a Rule 16 scheduling

conference on August 2, 2013, and did not file a scheduling
conference statement.
On August 7, 2013, the Magistrate Judge issued an order
that required Kaulia “to show good cause, if any, why sanctions,
including dismissal of this case, should not be imposed for the
failure to prosecute this case.”

See ECF No. 14.

Kaulia failed

to respond in writing and also failed to attend the show cause
hearing.
On September 10, 2013, the Magistrate Judge issued the
“F & R,” recommending the action be dismissed because of Kaulia’s
failure to: (1) serve the defendants; (2) attend the Rule 16
scheduling conference or file the scheduling conference
statement; (3) attend the show cause hearing; and (4) otherwise
prosecute his case.

See ECF No. 17.

On October 7, 2013, not having in hand Kaulia’s
“charging sheet” and thinking that no party had filed an
objection to the F & R, the court adopted the F & R, see ECF No.
18, and entered judgment against Kaulia.

See ECF No. 19.

In

reality, Kaulia had mailed his “charging sheet” to the court,
consisting of documents virtually identical to those submitted
with his complaint.
The court construes Kaulia’s “charging sheet” as a

2

timely objection.

Accordingly, the court vacates its October 7,

2013, order and judgment because they were entered with the
understanding that no objections to the F & R had been filed.
III.

STANDARD OF REVIEW.
This court reviews de novo those portions of an F & R

to which objection is made and may accept, reject, or modify, in
whole or in part, the F & R issued by the Magistrate Judge.

The

court may accept those portions of the Magistrate Judge’s F & R
that are not objected to if it is satisfied that there is no
clear error on the face of the record. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Local Rule 74.2; Int’l Longshore &
Warehouse Union, Local 142, AFL–CIO v. Foodland Super Market
Ltd., 2004 WL 2806517, *1 (D. Haw. Sept. 15, 2004); Stow v.
Murashige, 288 F. Supp. 2d 1122, 1127 (D. Haw. 2003); Abordo v.
State of Hawaii, 902 F. Supp. 1220 (D. Haw. 1995); see also
Campbell v. United States Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th
Cir. 1974).
IV.

BACKGROUND FACTS.
The court incorporates the facts set forth in the F &

R, as Kaulia is not challenging or objecting to those facts.
V.

ANALYSIS.
Construing Kaulia’s “charging sheet” as a timely

objection, and having reviewed it de novo, the court affirms the
F & R.

Kaulia’s “charging sheet” provides no grounds on which to
3

reject the F & R.

The “charging sheet” does not address the F &

R at all but merely resubmits documents filed earlier.
documents have already been taken into account.

Those

Moreover, the

court finds no error in the Magistrate Judge’s findings that
Kaulia repeatedly failed to prosecute his case.
VI.

CONCLUSION.
The court readopts the Magistrate Judge’s well-reasoned

F & R in full.

The Clerk of Court is directed to reenter

judgment against Kaulia and to close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, October 10, 2013.

/s/ Susan Oki Mollway
Susan Oki Mollway
Chief United States District Judge

Kaulia v. Ezra., Civ. No. 13-00106 SOM/BMK; ORDER READOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION AND DIRECTING REENTRY OF JUDGMENT

4