1

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 * * * 5 Hector Santos, Case No. 2:23-cv-02134-MMD-DJA 6 Plaintiff, 7 Report and Recommendation v. 8 S. Kinney; et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 On May 6, 2024, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the Court should not 12 dismiss his case for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), noting that 13 Plaintiff had not taken any action in the case since January 30, 2024. (ECF No. 14). The Cout 14 explained that “[f]ailure to comply with this order may result in a recommendation from the 15 undersigned magistrate judge to the assigned district judge for the imposition of sanctions, 16 including dismissal.” (Id.). To date, Plaintiff has not filed anything further in this action. 17 18 Accordingly, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that this case be DISMISSED without 19 prejudice. The Clerk of Court is kindly directed to send this recommendation to Plaintiff. 20 21 NOTICE 22 Pursuant to Local Rule IB 3-2 any objection to this Report and Recommendation must be 23 in writing and filed with the Clerk of the Court within (14) days after service of this Notice. The 24 Supreme Court has held that the courts of appeal may determine that an appeal has been waived 25 due to the failure to file objections within the specified time. Thomas v. Arn,

, 142 26 (1985), reh’g denied,

(1986). The Ninth Circuit has also held that (1) failure to file objections within the specified time and (2) failure to properly address and brief the objectionable 27 issues waives the right to appeal the District Court’s order and/or appeal factual issues from the 1 order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst,

(9th Cir. 1991); Britt v. Simi 2 Valley United Sch. Dist.,

, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 3 4 DATED: August 29, 2024 5

6

7 DANIEL J. ALBREGTS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27