1

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 * * * 5 Destiny Hoag, Case No. 2:23-cv-00681-JAD-DJA 6 Plaintiffs, 7 Report and Recommendation v. 8 City of Henderson; Michelle Leavitt; Jeremy 9 Cooley; Henderson Police Department; and Officer P. Duffy, et al., 10 Defendants. 11 12 On January 24, 2024, the Court entered an order to show cause requiring Plaintiff to 13 explain why the Court should not recommend dismissal of this action for Plaintiff’s failure to 14 prosecute this action. (ECF No. 9). Plaintiff did not respond to that order to show cause. The 15 Court thus exercises its discretion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) to recommend 16 dismissing Plaintiff’s case. The Court is required to weigh several factors in determining whether 17 to dismiss a case for lack of prosecution: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of 18 litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; 19 (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less 20 drastic sanctions. In re Phenylpropanolamine Products Liability Litigation,

, 1226 21 (9th Cir. 2006); Comes v. Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc., No. cv 20-5451-DMG (KKx), 2023

, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2023). It is within the court’s discretion whether to 23 impose dismissal sanctions. In re Phenylpropanolamine,

. 24 Here, the first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation 25 and the Court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of terminating sanctions. Plaintiff 26 has disengaged from participation in this case, as demonstrated by her failure to comply with the 27 Court’s orders requiring her to show proof of service and her failure to respond to the Court’s 1 || inconsistent with Rule 1’s directive to “secure a just, speedy, and inexpensive” determination of 2 || this action. Plaintiffs failures to comply with the Court’s orders also have interfered with the 3 || Court’s management of its docket. 4 The third factor and fourth factors, risk of prejudice to the other parties and the public 5 || policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits, also weigh in favor of terminating sanctions. 6 || Given that Plaintiff has not shown proof of service, her case has not proceeded further and there 7 || are no active defendants in this case. Finally, sanctions less drastic than terminating sanctions are 8 || unavailable because Plaintiff has failed to comply with multiple Court orders. Given □□□□□□□□□□□ 9 || failure to comply with past orders, the Court has no reason to believe she would comply with 10 || future orders. Plaintiff has also been warned that failure to comply with the Court’s order to 11 || show cause would result in a recommendation that dismissal sanctions be entered against her. 12 13 IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Plaintiffs case be dismissed without 14 || prejudice. The Clerk of Court is kindly directed to send Plaintiff a copy of this order. 15 NOTICE 16 Pursuant to Local Rule IB 3-2 any objection to this Report and Recommendation must be 17 || in writing and filed with the Clerk of the Court within fourteen (14) days after service of this 18 || Notice. The Supreme Court has held that the courts of appeal may determine that an appeal has 19 || been waived due to the failure to file objections within the specified time. Thomas v. Arn, 474 20 || U.S. 140, 142 (1985) reh’g denied,

(1986). The Ninth Circuit has also held that 21 || (1) failure to file objections within the specified time and (2) failure to properly address and brief 22 || the objectionable issues waives the right to appeal the District Court’s order and/or appeal factual 23 || issues from the order of the District Court. Martinez v. Yist,

(9th Cir. 1991); 24 || Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch. Dist.,

, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 25 DATED: April 1, 2024 O a DANIEL J. ALBREGTS 28 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE