1

2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 ELIJAH DOUGLAS ROGERS, Case No. 3:19-cv-00503-MMD-CSD

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF 9 CORRECTIONS, et al.,

10 Defendants. 11 Pro se Plaintiff Elijah Douglas Rogers brings this action under

12 regarding incidents which took place while he was incarcerated in the custody of the 13 Nevada Department of Corrections. (ECF No. 11.) Before the Court is the Report and 14 Recommendation (“R&R” or “Recommendation”) of United States Magistrate Judge Craig 15 S. Denney (ECF No. 40), recommending the Court dismiss this action with prejudice for 16 failure to prosecute and deny Defendants’ pending summary judgment motion (ECF No. 17 31) as moot. Rogers had until February 21, 2022, to file an objection. To date, no objection 18 to the R&R has been filed. For this reason, and as explained below, the Court adopts the 19 R&R, and will dismiss this case. 20 The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 21 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”

(b)(1). Where a party 22 fails to object to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, the Court is not required to 23 conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas 24 v. Arn,

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

, 25 1116 (9th Cir. 2003) (“De novo review of the magistrate judges’ findings and 26 recommendations is required if, but only if, one or both parties file objections to the 27 findings and recommendations.”) (emphasis in original); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory 28 1 || Committee Notes (1983) (providing that the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is no 2 || clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”). 3 Because there is no objection, the Court need not conduct de novo review, and is 4 || satisfied Judge Denney did not clearly err. Here, Judge Denney recommends this action 5 || should be dismissed with prejudice because Rogers has failed to continue prosecuting 6 || his claims. (ECF No. 40 at 2.) After Defendants filed their motion for summary judgment 7 || in December 2021, a notice was issued that Rogers had been discharged from prison. 8 || (ECF No. 32.) The Court issued a minute order on January 5, 2021, directing Rogers to 9 || update his address in accordance with Local Rule IA 3-1. (ECF No. 35.) Rogers never 10 || updated his address, filed a response to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, or 11 || otherwise responded to the Court’s orders. Judge Denney applied the five-part test in 12 || Carey v. King,

(9th Cir. 1998), and found the factors favor dismissal 13 || and that a lesser sanction would be ineffective, as the Court has no means of contacting 14 || Rogers. The Court therefore agrees with Judge Denney that this action should be 15 || dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Having 16 || reviewed the R&R and the record in this case, the Court will adopt the R&R in full. 17 It is therefore ordered that Judge Denney’s Report and Recommendation (ECF 18 || No. 40) is accepted and adopted in full. 19 It is further ordered that this action is dismissed with prejudice. 20 It is further ordered that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 31) 21 || is denied as moot. 22 The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. 23 DATED THIS 24" Day of February 2022. 24

26 KMRANDA M-DU——— 57 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

28