1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 Case No.: 2:20-cv-01932-JAD-NJK 4 State of Nevada Supreme Courts, 5 Plaintiff Order Adopting Report and 6 Recommendation, Dismissing Action, v. and Closing Case 7

Jonathan Green, 8 [ECF No. 4] Defendant 9 10 In October, the court ordered Jonathan Green to pay the filing fee to avoid having this 11 case dismissed.1 When Green failed to do so, the magistrate judge recommended that I dismiss 12 this case.2 The deadline for objections to that report and recommendation passed without any 13 filing or payment of the fee, and “no review is required of a magistrate judge’s report and 14 recommendation unless objections are filed.”3 15 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of 16 that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case.4 A 17 court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a 18 court order, or failure to comply with local rules.5 In determining whether to dismiss an action 19

20 21 1 ECF No. 3. 22 2 ECF No. 4. 23 3 Schmidt v. Johnstone,

(D. Ariz. 2003); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474

, 150 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia,

(9th Cir. 2003). 4 Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles,

(9th Cir. 1986). 25 5 See Ghazali v. Moran,

, 53–54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with 26 local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

, 1260–61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to 27 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 28 keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service,

(9th Cir. 1 1 |] on one of these grounds, the court must consider: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious 2 || resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the 3 || defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the 4 || availability of less drastic alternatives.° 5 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the 6 || court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissal of this case. The third factor, 7 of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of injury 8 || arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or 9 || prosecuting an action.’ A court’s warning to a party that its failure to obey the court’s order will 10 || result in dismissal satisfies the fifth factor’s “consideration of alternatives” requirement,® and 11 || that warning was given here.’ The fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of cases 12 || on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal. 13 Accordingly, with good cause appearing and no reason to delay, IT IS HEREBY 14}]ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 4] is ADOPTED, and this case is 15 |) DISMISSED for failure to pay the filing fee as directed by the court. The Clerk of Court is 16 || directed to ENTER JUDGMENT accordingly and CLOSE THIS CASE. oats 18 US. District fae Jenni fer A. Dorsey Dated: January 20, 2021 19 20

22 || 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan,

, 74 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). 24 © Thompson,

; Henderson,

; Malone,

; Ferdik,

; Ghazali,

. 7 See Anderson y. Air West,

(9th Cir. 1976). 07 8 Ferdik,

; Malone,

; Henderson,

. 28 ||? ECF Nos. 3, 4.