2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 NATHAN WHEELER, Case No. 3:19-cv-00372-MMD-CLB

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8

9 WASHOE COUNTY COURT,

10 Defendant.

11 12 Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States 13 Magistrate Judge Carla L. Baldwin recommending that this case be dismissed for Plaintiff 14 Nathan Wheeler’s failure to submit a complaint or comply with LR IA 3-1.1 (ECF No. 7.) In 15 light of Plaintiff’s failure, it is no surprise that he has not filed an objection to the R&R, 16 although he had until May 12, 2020, to do so. (Id.) The Court will adopt the R&R and 17 dismiss this case. 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 fails to object to a magistrate’s recommendation, the Court is not required to conduct “any 21 review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474

, 149 (1985); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia,

(9th Cir. 23 2003) (“De novo review of the magistrate judges’ findings and recommendations is 24 25 1Local Rule 3-1 provides: 26 An attorney or pro se party must immediately file with the court written 27 notification of any change of mailing address, email address, telephone number, or facsimile number . . . Failure to comply with this rule may result 28 in the dismissal of the action, entry of default judgment, or other sanctions as deemed appropriate by the court. 1 || required if, but onlyif, one or both parties file objections to the findings and 2 || recommendations.”) (emphasis in original); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory Committee Notes 3 || (1983) (providing that the court “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the 4 || face of the record in order to accept the recommendation’). 5 The Court finds it unnecessary to engage in de novo review to determine whether 6 || to adopt Judge Baldwin’s R&R and is satisfied that there is no clear error upon reviewing 7 || the docket. Plaintiff was advised that failure to submit a complaint by April 10, 2020, and 8 || failure to file a notice of change of address as required under LR IA 3-1 by April 22, 2020, 9 || would result in dismissal of this case. (ECF Nos. 3, 5.) Those dates have long passed, 10 || and Plaintiff has provided no such complaint or notice. Nor has he taken action in this 11 || matter since initiating this case in July 2019. The Court therefore agrees with the R&R that 12 || dismissal of this action is warranted under LR IA 3-1. See also Thompson v. Hous. Auth. 13 || of City of L. A.,

(9th Cir. 1986) (recognizing that district courts have the 14 || inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of that power, they may 15 || impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case); Malone v. U.S. 16 || Postal Serv.,

(9th Cir. 1987) (dismissing case for failure to comply with 17 || court order). 18 Itis therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the Report and Recommendation 19 || of Magistrate Judge Carla L. Baldwin (ECF No. 7) is accepted and adopted in full. 20 It is further ordered that this case is dismissed without prejudice and the pending 21 || motion (ECF No. 1) is denied as moot. 22 The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 23 DATED THIS 15" day of May 2020. “ { Shr. 25 LT MIRANDA M. DU 26 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 27 28