1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 Case No.: 2:20-cv-01788-JAD-BNW 4 Tim Mulcahy,

5 Plaintiff Order Adopting Report and 6 v. Recommendation and Dismissing Action 7 Cedric Kerns,

8 Defendant [ECF Nos. 2, 3, 5, 8]

9 10 Having reviewed the record of this action, the magistrate judge recommends in a report 11 and recommendation (R&R) that I deny Plaintiff Tim Mulcahy’s motions to cease and desist, for 12 immediate relief, for a peremptory writ of prohibition, and to extend time to file a response.1 13 Objections to that recommendation were due by November 17, 2020. And because the plaintiff 14 has not filed a complaint to properly commence this case, she ordered him to file one by 15 December 4, 2020.2 Because mail directed to the plaintiff has been returned to the court, the 16 magistrate judge also ordered the plaintiff to update his address by December 4, 2020, or she 17 would recommend that this case be dismissed.3 18 Mulcahy neither objected to the report and recommendation by the deadline nor moved to 19 extend that deadline, and he has not updated his address with this court. “[N]o review is required 20 of a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation unless objections are filed.”4 Having 21 22

23 1 ECF No. 8. 24 2 Id. 25 3 ECF No. 9. 26 27 4 Schmidt v. Johnstone,

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

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

(9th Cir. 2003). 28 1 1 reviewed the R&R, I find good cause to adopt it, and I do. And because Mulcahy has failed to 2 file a complaint in this case or update his address, I dismiss this case without prejudice. 3 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of 4 that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case.5 A 5 court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a 6 court order, or failure to comply with local rules.6 In determining whether to dismiss an action 7 on one of these grounds, the court must consider: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious 8 resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the 9 defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the 10 availability of less drastic alternatives.7 11 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the 12 court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissal. The third factor, risk of 13 prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of injury arises 14 from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or 15 prosecuting an action.8 A court’s warning to a party that its failure to obey the court’s order will 16 result in dismissal satisfies the fifth factor’s “consideration of alternatives” requirement.9 And 17

18 5 Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles,

(9th Cir. 1986). 19 6 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 21 comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King,

, 1440– 41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to 22 keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service,

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

, 23 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). 24 7 Thompson,

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

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

.

26 8 See Anderson v. Air West,

(9th Cir. 1976). 27 9 Ferdik,

; Malone, 833 F.2d at 132–33; Henderson,

. 28 2 | || that warning was given here.'° The fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of 2 on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation [ECF 4 8] is ADOPTED in its entirety. 5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Cease and Desist [ECF No. 2] is 6 |} DENIED; 7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Immediate Relief [ECF No. 3] is 8 || DENIED; 9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Peremptory Writ of Prohibition [ECF 10 || No. 5] is DENIED; 11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice for 12 || failure to file a complaint and for failure to update address. The Clerk of Court is directed to 13 ||} ENTER JUDGMENT accordingly and CLOSE THIS CASE. 14 Dated: December 8, 2020 15 Chom 16 U.S. District Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 || !° ECF Nos. 8, 9.