2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 HEATH VINCENT FULKERSON, Case No. 3:19-cv-00753-MMD-WGC

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8

9 FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP,

10 Defendants.

11

12 Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States 13 Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb recommending that this case be dismissed for Plaintiff 14 Heath Vincent Fulkerson’s failure to submit an amended complaint correcting the 15 deficiencies of his complaint noted in the screening order. (ECF No. 5.) Plaintiff has not 16 filed an objection to the R&R, although he had until June 1, 2020, to do so. (Id.) The Court 17 will adopt the R&R and 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 required if, but only if, one or both parties file objections to the findings and 25 recommendations.”) (emphasis in original); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory Committee Notes 26 (1983) (providing that the court “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the 27 face of the record in order to accept the recommendation”). 28 The Court finds it unnecessary to engage in de novo review to determine whether 1 || to adopt Judge Cobb’s R&R and is satisfied that there is no clear error upon reviewing the 2 || docket. Plaintiff was advised that failure to submit an amended complaint by April 17, 3 || 2020, would result in dismissal of this case. (ECF No. 3 at 4.) That date has long passed, 4 || and Plaintiff has provided no such complaint. The Court therefore agrees with the R&R 5 || that dismissal of this action is warranted. See Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of L. A., 6 ||

(9th Cir. 1986) (recognizing that district courts have the inherent power 7 || to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions 8 || including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case); Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 9 || F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissing case for failure to comply with court order). 10 It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the Report and 11 || Recommendation of Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb (ECF No. 5) is accepted and 12 || adopted in full. 13 It is further ordered that this case is dismissed without prejudice. 14 The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 15 DATED THIS 3% day of June 2020. re {GA 17 MIRANDA M. DU 18 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28