1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Case No.: 2:18-cv-001419-JAD-NJK 4 Charles Tyrone Cason, 5 Plaintiff Order Adopting Report and Recommendation and Dismissing 6 v. and Closing Case 7 Southern Desert Correctional Center, et al., [ECF No. 11] 8 Defendants 9 10 On July 22, 2019, the court ordered service to be accomplished on lone Defendant 11 Worthey,1 but the record contains no indication of successful service.2 So, on February 24, 12 2020, the court ordered plaintiff to show cause, by March 16, 2020, why this case should not be 13 dismissed for lack of service.3 Plaintiff filed nothing, so on April 13, 2020, the magistrate judge 14 recommended that this case be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) for lack of 15 service. The deadline for objections to that report and recommendation passed without objection 16 or a request to extend the deadline to file one. “[N]o review is required of a magistrate judge’s 17 report and recommendation unless objections are filed.”4 Having reviewed the R&R, I find good 18 cause to adopt it, and I do. 19 20 1 ECF No. 7. 21 2 SeeECFNo. 9 (summons returned unexecuted). 3 ECFNo. 10. 22 4 Schmidt v. Johnstone,

(D. Ariz. 2003); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474

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

(9th Cir. 2003). 1 FRCP 4(m) requires service of the summons and complaint to be completed within 90 2 days of the complaint’s filing, and “[i]f a defendant is not served within 90 days after the 3 complaint is filed, the court—on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss 4 the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a 5 specified time.”5 Rule 4(c)(1) further makes it clear that “[t]he plaintiff is responsible for having

6 the summons and complaint served within the time allowed under Rule 4(m).”6 7 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of 8 that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case.7 A 9 court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a 10 court order, or failure to comply with local rules.8 In determining whether to dismiss an action 11 on one of these grounds, the court must consider: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious 12 resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the 13 defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the 14 availability of less drastic alternatives.9

15 16 17 5 Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 4(m). 18 6 Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 4(c). 19 7 Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles,

(9th Cir. 1986). 8 See Ghazali v. Moran,

,53–54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with 20 local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

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

, 1440– 21 41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service,

(9th Cir. 22 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan,

(9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). 23 9 Thompson,

; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423–24; Malone,

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

. ] The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the 2\| court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissal of the plaintiffs claims. The 3|| third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal because a All presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading 5]| ordered by the court or prosecuting an action.'° A court’s warning to a party that its failure to 6]| obey the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the fifth factor’s “consideration of 7|| alternatives” requirement,'! and that warning was given here. The fourth factor—the public 8|| policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors 9|| favoring dismissal. 10 Because plaintiff has not demonstrated that process has been served within the time prescribed by FRCP 4(m), 12 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 11] is ADOPTED in full, and this case is DISMISSED without prejudice under FRCP 4(m). 14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE THIS CASE. 16 Dated: April 30, 2020 7 oy Y) Res x U.S. District Judge Jennifer A./Dorsey 18 19 20 21 22 See Anderson v. Air West,

(9th Cir. 1976). Ferdik,

; Malone,

; Henderson,

.