1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 Cossack Yc (EX REL: Davon Leo Case No.: 2:22-cv-00104-CDS-DJA Townsell), 6 Plaintiff, Order Adopting Report and 7 v. Recommendation

8 The State of Nevada, [ECF No. 8]

9 Defendant.

10 11 Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (R&R) of United States Magistrate 12 Judge Daniel J. Albregts entered on April 11, 2022. (ECF No. 8). The magistrate judge has 13 recommended that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 6) be denied 14 without prejudge as incomplete because the Plaintiff did not sign his application or complaint as 15 required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. (ECF No. 6 at 2, 6-1 at 3). 16 The Plaintiff was given the option to file a completed application to proceed in forma 17 pauperis, along with one signed complaint on or before May 11, 2022; or, in the alternative, to pay 18 the filing fee of $350 and administrative fee of $52, for a total of $402, accompanied by a copy of 19 the order and one signed complaint. The Court warned Plaintiff that the action would be 20 dismissed if he failed to comply by that deadline. (ECF No. 8 at 2). The R&R also recommended 21 that the motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 7) be denied without prejudice as premature. 22 The Court has conducted its de novo review in this case and finds that the deadline has 23 expired, and Plaintiff has not filed a signed application and complaint, paid the filing and 24 administrative fees, moved for an extension, or otherwise respond. Further, Plaintiff did not file 1 an objection(s), nor did the plaintiff ask the Court to extend the deadline to do so.1 “[N]o 2 review is required of a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation unless objections are 3 filed.”2 I nevertheless conducted a de novo review of the issues set forth in the report and 4 recommendation.

(b)(1). The Magistrate Judge sets forth the proper legal analysis 5 and factual basis in the R&R. Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge’s R&R is adopted in its 6 entirety. 7 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that United States Magistrate Judge Albregts’ Report 8 and Recommendation (ECF No. 8) is ADOPTED and ACCEPTED in its entirety. 9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that for Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis 10 (ECF No. 6) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is 12 DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 13 The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 DATED this 16th day of May, 2022. 16 ______________________________________ U.S. District Judge Cristina D. Silva 17

18 19

20 1 This is likely because the Plaintiff, a pro se party, has not filed with the court written notification of any change of mailing address, email address, or telephone number pursuant to Local Rule IA 3-1. As a result, 21 a copy of the R&R was returned undeliverable. ECF Nos. 10, 11. The local rules provide that failure to update changes to mailing addresses, email addresses, or telephone numbers may result in the dismissal 22 of the action. See LR IA 3-1. 2 Schmidt v. Johnstone,

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

, 150 23 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia,

(9th Cir. 2003). 24

2