1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 Case No.: 2:21-cv-01014-JAD-BNW 4 Christopher Gregg De Falco,

5 Plaintiff Order Adopting Report & Recommendation 6 and Dismissing Action v. 7 Cox Communications, Inc., et al., 8 [ECF Nos. 1, 7]

9 Defendant 10 11 When Plaintiff Christopher Gregg De Falco’s mail from this court started getting returned 12 to sender, the court ordered him to file a notice of change of address by August 13, 2021, or risk 13 having his case dismissed.1 Plaintiff did not update his address, so on September 13, 2021, the 14 magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation (R&R) to dismiss this case without 15 prejudice.2 The deadline for the plaintiff to object to that recommendation was September 27, 16 2021, and the plaintiff neither filed objections nor moved to extend the deadline to do so. “[N]o 17 review is required of a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation unless objections are 18 filed.”3 Having reviewed the R&R, I find good cause to adopt it, and I do. 19 A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to obey a local rule or court 20 order.4 In determining whether to dismiss an action on one of these grounds, the court must 21 consider: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to 22 23 24 1 ECF No. 6. 25 2 ECF No. 7. 26 3 United States v. Reyna-Tapia,

(9th Cir. 2003). 27 4 See Carey v. King,

, 1440–41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to comply 28 with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address). 1 || manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring 2 || disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives.° 3 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the 4 || court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissal. The third factor, risk of 5 || prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of injury arises 6 || from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or 7 || prosecuting an action.® The court has also evaluated less drastic alternatives by issuing a 8 || warning to the plaintiff that his failure to update his address would result in dismissal,’ and the 9 || Ninth Circuit recognizes that such a warning satisfies the fifth factor’s “consideration of 10 || alternatives” requirement.* The fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of cases on 11 || their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal. 12 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the magistrate judge’s report and 13 |} recommendation [ECF No. 7] is ADOPTED in full; 14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THIS CASE IS DISMISSED, and the motion to 15 || proceed in forma pauperis [ECF No. 1] is DENIED as moot. The Clerk of Court is directed to 16 || ENTER JUDGMENT ACCORDINGLY and CLOSE THIS CASE. cine 18 U.S. District Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey 19 Dated: October 12, 2021 20 21 22 23 aif 25 > Pagtalunan v. Galaza,

(9th Cir. 2002). 26 ||° See Anderson v. Air West,

(9th Cir. 1976). 27 ||’ ECF No. 6. 28 In re Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig.,

(9th Cir. 2006).