2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 JONATHAN A. TORRES, Case No. 3:18-cv-00481-MMD-CLB

7 Plaintiff, ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING v. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 8 OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE TIMOTHY FILSON, et al., CARLA L. BALDWIN 9 Defendants. 10

11 Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States 12 Magistrate Judge Carla L. Baldwin recommending that this case be dismissed for Plaintiff 13 Jonathan A. Torres’ failure to comply with LR IA 3-1.1 (ECF No. 13.) In light of Plaintiff’s 14 failure, it is no surprise that he has not filed an objection to the R&R, although he had until 15 June 15, 2020, to do so. The Court will adopt the R&R and dismiss this case. 16 This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 17 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”

(b)(1). Where a party 18 fails to object to a magistrate’s recommendation, the Court is not required to conduct “any 19 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. 21 2003) (“De novo review of the magistrate judges’ findings and recommendations is 22 required if, but only if, one or both parties file objections to the findings and 23 recommendations.”) (emphasis in original); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory Committee Notes 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. 2 face of the record in order to accept the recommendation”). 3 The Court finds it unnecessary to engage in de novo review to determine whether 4 to adopt Judge Baldwin’s R&R and is satisfied that there is no clear error upon reviewing 5 the docket. Plaintiff was advised that failure to file a notice of change of address as 6 required by LR IA 3-1 by May 29, 2020, would result in dismissal of this case. (ECF No. 7 13 at 1.) That date has passed, and Plaintiff has provided no such notice. The Court 8 therefore agrees with Judge Baldwin in the R&R that dismissal of this action is warranted 9 under LR IA 3-1. See also Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of L. A.,

, 831 10 (9th Cir. 1986) (recognizing that district courts have the inherent power to control their 11 dockets and “[i]n the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where 12 appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case); Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv.,

(9th 13 Cir. 1987) (dismissing case for failure to comply with court order). 14 It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the Report and 15 Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Carla L. Baldwin (ECF No. 13) is accepted and 16 adopted in full. 17 It is further ordered that this case is accordingly dismissed and the pending motion 18 (ECF No. 1) is denied as moot. 19 The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. 20 DATED THIS 24th day of June 2020. 21

22 MIRANDA M. DU 23 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28