From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Muhammad v. Jenkins

United States District Court, Central District of California
Sep 15, 2022
CV 19-7970 JAK (PVC) (C.D. Cal. Sep. 15, 2022)

Opinion

CV 19-7970 JAK (PVC)

09-15-2022

BELINDA C. MUHAMMAD, Plaintiff, v. BRETANNIYIA JENKINS, Defendant.


ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

JOHN A. KRONSTADT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed Plaintiff's Amended Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to FRCP 37(e) for Spoliation of Video Evidence, all the records and files herein, and the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. The time for filing Objections to the Report and Recommendation has passed and no Objections have been received. Accordingly, the Court accepts and adopts the findings, conclusions and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge.

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant's Amended Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to FRCP 37(e) for Spoliation of Video Evidence is DENIED.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve copies of this Order on Plaintiff at her current address of record and on counsel for Defendant.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Muhammad v. Jenkins

United States District Court, Central District of California
Sep 15, 2022
CV 19-7970 JAK (PVC) (C.D. Cal. Sep. 15, 2022)
Case details for

Muhammad v. Jenkins

Case Details

Full title:BELINDA C. MUHAMMAD, Plaintiff, v. BRETANNIYIA JENKINS, Defendant.

Court:United States District Court, Central District of California

Date published: Sep 15, 2022

Citations

CV 19-7970 JAK (PVC) (C.D. Cal. Sep. 15, 2022)

Citing Cases

Deerpoint Grp. v. Agrigenix LLC

. . . there must be evidence of ‘a serious and specific sort of culpability' regarding the loss of the…