1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 6 WILLIAM E. FODOR, Case No. 2:23-cv-01999-JAD-NJK 7 Plaintiff ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 8 v. RECOMMENDATION 9 STATE OF NEVADA, et al., ECF No. 22 10 Defendant 11 On 3/6/25, the magistrate judge entered this report and recommendation: 12 On October 31, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to stay proceedings in light of 13 health issues, his imminent release from custody, and other issues. Docket No. 18. The Court 14 ordered the parties to file a stipulation with new case management deadlines by January 29, 2025. 15 Id. On January 29, 2025, Defendants filed a unilateral proposal explaining that their attempts to 16 contact Plaintiff were not fruitful. Docket No. 20 at 1-2. 17 On January 30, 2025, the Court rejected that unilateral proposal, explaining in pertinent 18 part as follows: 19 If Plaintiff wishes to continue with this litigation, he must maintain proper contact information and must communicate with opposing 20 counsel. To that end, Plaintiff must immediately contact defense counsel regarding a schedule for advancing this case. The parties 21 must file a joint request to set new case management deadlines by February 21, 2025. Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to comply with 22 this order may result in dismissal. 23 Docket No. 21 at 1 (emphasis in original). The Court’s deadline to file a joint case management 24 proposal has come and gone, and Plaintiff has filed nothing further in the case.1 Failure to comply 25 1 Defense counsel was required to file a notice in the event Plaintiff continued to fail to communicate with him, Docket No. 21 at 1, which defense counsel did not do. Given that it is 26 ultimately Plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a), and that the defense previously filed a proposal with new case management deadlines, Docket No. 20, the 27 consequences for failing to comply with the order to file a joint case management proposal are appropriately borne by Plaintiff. Defense counsel is also admonished for failing to comply with 28 the Court’s order. 1} with a pretrial order may result in sanctions, including case-dispositive sanctions. See, e.g., Fed. 2) R. Civ. P. 16(f). 3 Plaintiff has disobeyed the Court’s order requiring him to file a joint request for case management deadlines. Plaintiffs disobedience of the Court’s order is abusive litigation practice 5] that has interfered with the Court’s ability to hear this case, delayed litigation, disrupted the Court’s 6] timely management of its docket, wasted judicial resources, and threatened the integrity of the 7|| Court’s orders and the orderly administration of justice. Sanctions less drastic than dismissal are 8|| unavailable because Plaintiff has refused to comply with the order notwithstanding the warning 9] that case-dispositive sanctions may be imposed. Indeed, it appears that Plaintiff has chosen to 10] abandon this case. 11 Accordingly, in light of the circumstances outlined above, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that this case be DISMISSED without prejudice. 13 Dated: March 6, 2025 Nancy J:Koppe 15 United States Magistrate Judge 16 17 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 18 The deadline for any party to object to this recommendation was 3/20/25, and no party 19] filed anything or asked to extend the deadline to do so. “[N]o review is required of a magistrate 20] judge’s report and recommendation unless objections are filed.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 21]

(9th Cir. 2003). Having reviewed the report and recommendation, I find 22|| good cause to adopt it, and I do. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s 23|| Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 22] is ADOPTED in its entirety, THIS CASE IS 24! DISMISSED, and the Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE THIS CASE. 25

US. Distrist_.udge Tenkiey A. Dorsey Dated: March 21, 2025 28