1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 CITY OF NORTH LAS VEGAS, et at., ) 4 ) Plaintiff, ) Case No.: 2:19-cv-00955-GMN-DJA 5 vs. ) ) ORDER 6 LEE EDWARD SZYMBORSKI, ) 7 ) Defendant. ) 8 ) 9 10 Pending before the Court is Lee Edward Szymborski’s Objection, (ECF No. 8), to the 11 Honorable Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Albregts’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), (ECF 12 No. 7). The R&R recommends dismissal of this case because Szymborski has failed to file a 13 complaint despite being warned on July 10, 2019, that failure to do so within thirty days would 14 result in dismissal of the action without prejudice. (R&R 1:12–18); (Order, ECF No. 5) 15 (ordering that Szymborski “file the complaint associated with this action within 30 days from 16 the date of this order,” and warning of dismissal). 17 The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 18 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”

(b)(1). Where a party fails to 19 object, however, the court is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is 20 not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn,

(1985); see also United 21 States v. Reyna-Tapia,

(9th Cir. 2003) (“De novo review of the magistrate 22 judges’ findings and recommendations is required if, but only if, one or both parties file 23 objections to the findings and recommendations.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory Committee 24 Notes (1983). 25 1 In his Objection, Szymborski states he did not receive the Court’s July 10, 2019 Order 2 warning of dismissal because his mailbox had been physically damaged on several occasions 3 around that time. (Obj. 2:5–16). Szymborski adds that, due to not receiving the July Order, he 4 did not know he failed to attach a complaint with past filings. Yet, even after realizing this 5 mistake and filing the Objection, Szymborski again failed to file a complaint—though he 6 claims to have attached the complaint as Exhibit 1 to the Objection. (See id. 2:5) (referencing 7 the “ATTACHED COMPLAINT,” but the filing contains no attachments or exhibits). And in 8 the several months since Szymborski filed his Objection, he still has not corrected this 9 deficiency. Consequently, pursuant to this District’s Local Rule IA 11-8, dismissal of this 10 action is an available penalty based on his continued noncompliance with the Court’s Orders. 11 D. Nev. Local R. IA 11-8. However, because dismissal is a harsh penalty, the Court will weigh 12 five factors to determine the appropriateness of such action: “(1) the public’s interest in 13 expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its dockets; (3) the risk of 14 prejudice to [the party seeking sanctions]; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on 15 their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” Hester v. Vision Airlines, Inc., 16

(9th Cir. 2012) (quotation omitted). 17 Of the five factors, the first and second strongly favor dismissal here. “Orderly and 18 expeditious resolution of disputes is of great importance to the rule of law,” and Syzmborski’s 19 actions are blatantly inconsistent with that expectation. See In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) 20 Prod. Liab. Litig.,

(9th Cir. 2006). His failure to comply with the Court’s 21 Orders and failure to ensure that his filings comply with clear instructions have unnecessarily 22 prevented any substantive progress in this case for over a year. (See Receipt of Initiating

23 Documents, ECF No. 1) (filed on June 3, 2019). This failure has caused the Court to expend 24 time and resources that could have gone to other matters deserving of attention. 25 1 However, after considering the third, fourth, and fifth factors, the Court finds that 2 Szymborski should have one final attempt to file a complaint in this action before dismissal 3 occurs. None of the other parties in this case have appeared yet; and thus, the Court does not 4 find that the current delay creates a risk of prejudice to other parties worthy of dismissal at this 5 time. Disposing of this case on the merits further weighs against dismissal—but only 6 minimally. Cf. In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Prod. Liab. Litig.,

(“[T]his 7 factor [of disposition on the merits] lends little support to a party whose responsibility it is to 8 move a case toward disposition on the merits but whose conduct impedes progress in that 9 direction.”) (quotations omitted). Lastly, based on Szymborski’s representation that he “has 10 never received any notice prior to the [R&R]” about the possibility of dismissal for failing to 11 file a complaint, one final warning is appropriate. 12 Szymborski will have ten days to file a complaint in this case. This timeframe is more 13 than sufficient to file the already-drafted complaint that Szymborski claims to have attached to 14 prior filings. Accordingly, 15 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court ADOPTS in part the Honorable 16 Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Albregts’s Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 7). Szymborski 17 has ten days from the date of this Order to file a complaint in this case. Failure to do so will 18 result in dismissal of the case without prejudice. 19 DATED this __2_9__ day of June, 2020. 20 21 ___________________________________ Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge 22 United States District Court 23 24 25