1

2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 NATHANIAL CHARLES HARRIEL, SR., Case No. 3:22-cv-00419-ART-CSD

7 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND v. RECOMMENDATION (ECF NO. 12) 8 AND DISMISSING WITHOUT RENO POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., PREJUDICE 9 Defendants. 10 11 Pro se Plaintiff Nathanial Charles Harriel, Sr., brings this action under 42

complaining of unlawful arrest and unlawful search by Officer 13 Sanchez of the Reno Police Department. Before the Court is the Report and 14 Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Craig S. Denney 15 (ECF No. 12), recommending the dismissal of this action without prejudice 16 because Mr. Harriel failed to comply with a court order requiring him to update 17 the court on the status of his underlying criminal case, (ECF No. 11). Plaintiff 18 had until September 5, 2023 to file an objection to Judge Denney’s R&R. (ECF 19 No. 12 at 4.) To date, no objection has been filed. For this reason, and as 20 explained below, the Court adopts the R&R and dismisses the present action 21 without prejudice. 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 dismissal without prejudice because Mr. Harriel failed to comply 8 with a court order (ECF No. 11) requiring him to update the Court on the status 9 of his underlying criminal case. Mr. Harriel has previously failed to comply with 10 a similar order and has not made any contact with the Court since February of 11 this year. (ECF Nos. 7 (granting Mr. Harriel until May 5, 2023 to amend his 12 Complaint and update the Court on the status of his criminal case).) 13 A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to comply with a 14 court order. Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

(9th Cir. 1992). In 15 determining whether to dismiss an action, a Court must consider: (1) the public’s 16 interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its 17 docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring 18 disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic 19 alternatives. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles,

, 831 20 (9th Cir. 1986); Henderson v. Duncan,

(9th Cir. 1986); 21 Malone v. U.S. Postal Service,

(9th Cir. 1987); Ferdik,

; Ghazali v. Moran,

(9th Cir. 1995). Judge Denney 23 considered each of these factors and found that factors (1), (2), (3), and (5) 24 weighed in favor of dismissal. (ECF No. 12 at 3.) While Judge Denney found 25 factor (4) weighed against dismissal, he concluded it was outweighed by the other 26 factors. He also concluded that dismissal without prejudice was appropriate in 27 light of the Court’s prior warning to Mr. Harriel that he risked dismissal if he 28 continued to ignore the Court’s orders. (Id.) The Court agrees with Judge Denney 1 || and concludes that he did not clearly err in recommending dismissal. Having 2 || reviewed the R&R and the record in this case, the Court will adopt the R&R in 3 || full. 4 \\ 5 \\ 6 It is therefore ordered that Judge Denney’s Report and Recommendation 7 || (ECF No. 12) is accepted and adopted in full. 8 It is further ordered that this case is dismissed, without prejudice. The 9 || Court Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close the case. 10 Dated this 21st Day of November 2023. 11 12 Aros Wasted 1d 13 ANNE R. TRAUM 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28