1

2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 CHRISTOPHER WILKINS, Case No. 3:21-cv-00146-ART-CSD

7 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND v. RECOMMENDATION (ECF No. 33). 8 CHARLES DANIELS, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 Pro se Plaintiff Christopher Wilkins (“Wilkins”) brings this action under 42

. Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R” or 13 “Recommendation”) of United States Magistrate Judge Craig S. Denney (ECF No. 14 33), recommending the Court dismiss this action without prejudice and deny as 15 moot Defendants’ pending Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 27) and 16 corresponding Motion for Leave to File Documents Under Seal (ECF No. 28). 17 Plaintiff had until November 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 19 adopts the R&R in part, dismisses the action without prejudice, denies 20 Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 28) as moot, and grants 21 Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File Documents Under Seal. (ECF No. 28). 22 The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings 23 or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”

(b)(1). Where 24 a party fails to object to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, the Court is not 25 required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of 26 an objection.” Thomas v. Arn,

(1985); see also United States v. 27 Reyna-Tapia,

(9th Cir. 2003) (“De novo review of the 28 magistrate judges’ findings and recommendations is required if, but only if, one 1 || or both parties file objections to the findings and recommendations.”) (emphasis 2 || in original); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory Committee Notes (1983) (providing that 3 || the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the 4 || record in order to accept the recommendation.”). 5 Because there is no objection, the Court need not conduct de novo review, 6 || and is satisfied Judge Denney did not clearly err. Here, Judge Denney 7 || recommends dismissing the action with prejudice because Wilkins failed to file 8 || a notice of change of address or otherwise communicate with the Court since 9 || ordered to do so on September 27, 2022 in violation of LR IA 3-1. The Court 10 || agrees with Judge Denney. Having reviewed the R&R and the record in this case, 11 || the Court will adopt the R&R in full, except for granting Defendants’ Motion to 12 || Seal. 13 It is therefore ordered that Judge Denney’s Report and Recommendation 14 || (ECF No. 33) is accepted and adopted in full. 15 It is further ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice. 16 It is further ordered that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF 17 || No. is denied as moot. 18 It is further ordered that Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File Documents 19 || Under Seal is granted. (ECF No. 28). 20 The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close this case. 21 22 DATED this 11th Day of April 2023. 23 24 Ap ' floss dem 25 ANNE R. TRAUM 26 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

27 28