1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 SAFAR AMIRI, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-01938-KJM-JDP (PS) 11 Plaintiffs, 12 v. ORDER 13 U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 On April 9, 2024, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were 17 served on the parties, and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and 18 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. No objections were filed. 19 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 20

(9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed 21 de novo. See Robbins v. Carey,

(9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law 22 by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 23 . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 24 supported by the record. 25 In determining whether to dismiss a case for failure to comply with a court order and/or 26 failure to prosecute, the court must weigh the following factors: “(1) the public’s interest in 27 expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of 28 prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and 1 || (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives.” Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

, 1260-61 2 | (9th Cir. 1992) (citation omitted) (applying standard for dismissal based on failure to comply with 3 || court order); Henderson v. Duncan,

(9th Cir. 1986) (same standard for 4 | dismissal based on failure to prosecute). The court has considered the factors and finds they 5 || weigh in favor of dismissal. Although the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their 6 || merits weigh against dismissal, the other four factors weigh in favor of dismissal. First, 7 || plaintiffs’ lack of prosecution has delayed resolution of this case. Second, plaintiffs’ lack of 8 || response to the magistrate judge’s order to show cause and the lack of objections to the findings 9 || and recommendations indicate plaintiffs have effectively abandoned this case and the court 10 || cannot wait indefinitely for plaintiffs to respond or continue to expend scarce judicial resources 11 || onan abandoned case. Third, there is a risk of prejudice to defendants in requiring them to 12 || continue defending against this action when it appears plaintiffs have abandoned their case. 13 || Moreover, “[t]he law presumes injury from unreasonable delay.” Anderson v. Air W., Inc., 14 |

(9th Cir. 1976). Finally, the court finds less drastic alternatives are not 15 || available—the magistrate judge warned plaintiffs that failure to comply with the court’s order 16 || may result in sanctions, including dismissal. In light of plaintiffs’ effective abandonment of this 17 || case and lack of response to court orders the court finds dismissal is proper. 18 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 19 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed April 9, 2024, are ADOPTED; 20 2. This action is dismissed for failure to prosecute, failure to comply with the District’s 21 Local Rules, and failure to comply with court orders; 22 3. Defendants’ motion to dismiss, ECF No. 11, is denied as moot; and 23 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. 24 | DATED: August 19, 2024.

26 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

28

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28