1

2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 JOHN THOMAS FALVEY, Case No. 3:23-cv-00118-MMD-CSD

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 Pro se Plaintiff John Thomas Falvey brings this action under

. 12 Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States Magistrate 13 Judge Craig S. Denney (ECF No. 7), recommending that the Court dismiss this action 14 without prejudice and administratively close this case. Plaintiff had until May 24, 2023, to 15 file an objection. To date, no objection to the R&R has been filed. For this reason, and as 16 explained below, the Court adopts the R&R, and will dismiss this action without prejudice. 17 The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 18 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”

(b)(1). Because there 19 is no objection, the Court need not conduct de novo review; it is satisfied Judge Denney 20 did not clearly err. See Thomas v. Arn,

(1985); United States v. Reyna- 21 Tapia,

(9th Cir. 2003); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory Committee Notes 22 (1983). 23 Here, Judge Denney recommends dismissing this action under Federal Rule of 24 Civil Procedure 41(b) and Local Rule IA 3-1 because (1) Plaintiff has failed to timely file 25 a notice indicating a change in his contact information, and (2) he has not paid the filing 26 fee, filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis, or otherwise indicated his intent to 27 continue prosecuting this action. (ECF No. 7 at 2-3.) See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 41; LR IA 28 3-1 (requiring an attorney or pro se party to “immediately” notify the Court of any changes 1 in contact information, and authorizing “dismissal of the action . . . or other sanctions as 2 || deemed appropriate by the court’ if a party fails to comply); Carey v. King,

, 3 || 1440 (9th Cir. 1998) (outlining a five-factor test to apply in determining whether to dismiss 4 || apro se plaintiffs action under Rule 41(b)); Pagtalunan v. Galaza,

(9th 5 || Cir. 2002) (“It is incumbent upon the Court to manage its docket without being subject to 6 || routine noncompliance of litigants[.]”) (citation omitted). In weighing the five Carey factors, 7 || Judge Denney concluded that most factors weigh in favor of dismissal under Rule 41(b) 8 || as well as Local Rule IA 3-1. (/d. at 3.) The Court agrees with Judge Denney. Having 9 || reviewed the R&R and the record in this case, the Court will adopt the R&R in full. 10 It is therefore ordered that Judge Denney’s Report and Recommendation (ECF 11 || No. 7) is accepted and adopted in full. 12 It is further ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice. 13 It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court close this case. 14 DATED THIS 30' Day of May 2023. 15

17 □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ 18 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28