1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA ARTHUR MAYO, Case No.: 2:16-cv-00047-APG-VCF 4 Plaintiff Order Accepting Report and Recommendation and Dismissing Case v. [ECF No. 93] JOSEPH WILLIAMS, et al., 7 Defendants 8 On September 5, 2019, Magistrate Judge Ferenbach recommended that I dismiss this case with prejudice because plaintiff Arthur Mayo failed to update his address, did not respond to 10}| court orders, failed to file a response to an order to show cause, and did not appear at a show hearing. ECF No. 93. Mayo did not file an objection. Thus, I am not obligated to conduct de novo review of the report and recommendation.

(b)(1) (requiring district courts to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed 14|| findings to which objection is made”); United States v. Reyna-Tapia,

(9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (“the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and 16]| recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise” (emphasis in original)). 17 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Ferenbach’s report and 18]| recommendation (ECF No. 93) is accepted and plaintiff Arthur Mayo’s amended complaint 19|| (ECF No. 64) is DISMISSED with prejudice. The clerk of court is instructed to enter judgment in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiff. 21 DATED this 26th day of September, 2019. 22 23 ANDREW P. GORDON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE