1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Amida Anaya, Case No. 2:19-cv-00867-JAD-BNW 4 Plaintiff v. Order Adopting Report and 5 Recommendation, Denying Motion for Costco Wholesale Corporation, Summary Judgment as Moot,and 6 Dismissing Case Defendant 7 [ECF Nos. 23, 27] 8 9 10 In this removed personal-injury action, plaintiff Amida Anaya sues Costco Wholesale 11 Corporation for injuries she claims she sustained during a slip-and-fall accident at Costco’s 12 Henderson, Nevada, store.1 After Anaya’s counsel withdrew, the magistrate judgeordered 13 Anaya to file a notice stating whether she intends to represent herself.2 When she failed to do so, 14 the magistrate judgeordered Anaya to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for her 15 failure to comply with thecourt’s order.3 Anaya was instructed that her failure to respond to that 16 show-causeorder by March 13, 2020, would result in a recommendation that this case be 17 dismissed for failure to prosecute.4 Again, Anaya filed nothing. So,the magistrate judge now 18 recommends that I dismiss this action for failure to prosecute and deny the defendant’s pending 19 motion for summary judgment as moot.5 The deadline to object to that recommendation passed 20 21 1 ECF No. 1-1. 2 ECF No. 21. 22 3 ECF No. 26. 23 4 Id. at 2. 5 ECF No. 27. 1 without objectionor any request to extend the deadline to file one. “[N]o reviewis required of a 2 magistrate judge’s report and recommendation unless objections are filed.”6 3 A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute her case or obey a 4 court order.7 In determining whether to dismiss an action on one of these grounds, the court 5 must consider: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need

6 to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring 7 disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives.8 8 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the 9 court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissal. The third factor, risk of 10 prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of injury arises 11 from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or 12 prosecuting an action.9 A court’s warning to a party that its failure to obey the court’s order will 13 result in dismissal satisfies the fifth factor’s “consideration of alternatives” requirement,10 and 14

15 16 6 Schmidt v. Johnstone,

(D. Ariz. 2003); see also Thomas v. Arn,

(1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia,

(9th Cir. 2003). 17 7 See Ghazali v. Moran,

,53–54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

, 1260–61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to 18 comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King,

, 1440– 41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to 19 keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service,

(9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan,

, 20 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). 21 8 Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423–24; Malone,

; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260–61; Ghazali,

. 22 9 See Anderson v. Air West,

(9th Cir. 1976). 23 10 Ferdik,

; Malone, 833 F.2d at 132–33; Henderson,

. 1} that warning was given here.!' The fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of 2\| cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation [ECF No. 27] is ADOPTED in full; 5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure 6|| to prosecute; 7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 23] is DENIED as moot. 9 The Clerk of Court is directed to ENTER JUDGMENT ACCORDINGLY and CLOSE THIS CASE. 11 Dated: April 13, 2020 rare USS. District Judge Tennifer A. Dorsey 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 || ———____ ECF No. 26.

1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT this case is dismissed. The Clerk of Court is 2 directed to ENTER JUDGMENT ACCORDINGLY and CLOSE THIS CASE. 3 Dated: April 13, 2020 4 _________________________________ U.S. District Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23