1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Lamalsikou Lowe, Case No.: 2:18-cv-02134-JAD-DJA

4 Plaintiff Order Adopting Report 5 v. and Recommendation and Dismissing Case 6 Metro Police Department, et al., ECF No. 30 7 Defendants

8

9 Pro se prisoner Lamalsikou Lowe brought this civil-rights action under

10 to redress events he alleges occurred at the Clark County Detention Center. Screening left him 11 with Fourteenth Amendment due-process and excessive-force claims against a single Las Vegas 12 Metropolitan Police Department sergeant and yet unidentified Doe defendants, none of whom 13 has been served. On February 16, 2021, the magistrate judge entered a report and 14 recommendation that this action be dismissed without prejudice based on Lowe’s failure to serve 15 any defendant within the service-completion deadline of Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).1 Objections to 16 that recommendation were due by March 2, 2021, and Lowe neither filed objections nor moved 17 to extend the deadline to do so. 18 FRCP 4(m) requires service of the summons and complaint to be completed within 90 19 days of the complaint’s filing, and “[i]f a defendant is not served within 90 days after the 20 complaint is filed, the court—on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss 21 the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a 22 23

1 ECF No. 30. 1 specified time.”2 Rule 4(c)(1) further makes it clear that “[t]he plaintiff is responsible for having 2 the summons and complaint served within the time allowed under Rule 4(m).”3 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.4 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.5 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.6 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 of the plaintiff’s claims. The 13 third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal because a 14 presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading

15 ordered by the court or prosecuting an action.7 A court’s warning to a party that his failure to 16

2 Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 4(m). 17 3 Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 4(c). 18 4 Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles,

(9th Cir. 1986). 19 5 See Ghazali v. Moran,

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

, 1260–61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to 20 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 21 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,

, 22 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). 6 Thompson,

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

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

. 7 See Anderson v. Air West,

(9th Cir. 1976). 1}| obey the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the fifth factor’s “consideration of 2|| alternatives” requirement,® and that warning was given here.’ The fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal. 5 Because plaintiff has not demonstrated that process has been served on any defendant 6] within the time prescribed by FRCP 4(m), and no objections were filed to the report and 7\| recommendation for dismissal, IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the report and recommendation for dismissal [ECF No. 30] is ADOPTED, this case is DISMISSED without prejudice under FRCP 4(m), and the Clerk of Court is directed to ENTER 10|| JUDGMENT accordingly and CLOSE THIS CASE. 1] 12 DD et US. District JudpedenniferA/ Dorsey 13 Dated: March 11, 2021 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23||° Ferdik,

; Malone,

; Henderson,

. ECF Nos. 24 (4(m) dismissal notice), 30 (R&R).