1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 * * * 5 6 DANNY WILLIAMS, Case No. 3:16-CV-00759-MMD-CBC

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 ROMEO ARANAS, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 This action is a pro se civil rights case filed pursuant to

. Before 12 the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R” or “Recommendation”) of United 13 States Magistrate Judge Carla B. Carry (ECF No. 79) recommending the Court dismiss 14 this action for Plaintiff’s failure to notify the Court of his change of address as required 15 under LR IA 3-1. Plaintiff had until September 25, 2019, to object. (ECF No. 79.) Plaintiff 16 has not timely filed an objection, and the R&R sent to his address on filed was returned 17 as undeliverable. (ECF No. 81.) The Court will adopt the R&R. 18 This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 19 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”

(b)(1). Where a party 20 timely objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, then the Court is 21 required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and 22 recommendation] to which objection is made.”

Where a party fails to object, however, 23 the court is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the 24 subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn,

(1985). Indeed, the Ninth 25 Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a magistrate judge’s 26 report and recommendation where no objections have been filed. See United States v. 27 Reyna-Tapia,

(9th Cir. 2003) (disregarding the standard of review 28 employed by the district court when reviewing a report and recommendation to which no 1|| objections were made); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone,

(D. 2|| Ariz. 2003) (reading the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Reyna-Tapia as adopting the view that 3|| district courts are not required to review “any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”). 4|| Thus, if there is no objection to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, then the Court may accept the recommendation without review. See, e.g., Johnstone,

(accepting, without review, a magistrate judge’s recommendation to which no || objection was filed). 8 While Plaintiff has failed to object to Judge Carry’s recommendation to grant summary judgment in favor of Defendants, the Court will conduct a de novo review to 10|| determine whether to adopt the R&R. The Court agrees with Judge Carry’s recommendation. Plaintiff's failure to provide his updated address in compliance with LR 12|| IA 3-1 makes it difficult for the Court to address the merits of his case. It is not as if Plaintiff is not aware of his duty to file a change of address because he did file such a notice previously. (See ECF No 52.) 15 It is therefore ordered that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge 16|| Carla B. Carry (ECF No. 79) is accepted and adopted in full. 17 It is further ordered that this case is dismissed for Plaintiff's failure to comply with 18]| LR IA 3-1. 19 It is further ordered that Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 67) is denied as moot. 21 The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this order and close this || case. 23 DATED THIS 30" day of September 2019. 24

MIRANDA M. DU 26 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 27 28