Harris v. Los Angeles County

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 * * * TYLER HARRIS, Case No.2:25-CV-211 JCM (DJA) 8 Plaintiff(s), ORDER 9 v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY, et al., 11 Defendant(s).

13 Presently before the court is Magistrate Judge Albregts’s report and recommendation (“R&R”) to dismiss this action without prejudice. (ECF No. 4). The court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute or comply with a court order. (Id. at 1). After considering the factors set forth in Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439 (9th Cir. 1998), Judge Albregts recommends that this case be dismissed. (Id. at 2).

18 No objections were filed to the R&R. Thus, the court is not obligated to conduct a de novo review of the R&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (requiring courts to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings to which objection is made”); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (“[T]he district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.”).

24 Accordingly, 25 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that Judge Albregts’s R&R (ECF No. 4) be, and the same hereby is, ADOPTED, in full.

27 . . .

1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. The clerk of the court is INSTRUCTED to enter judgment in favor of defendants and close this case.

3 DATED May 21, 2025. ____________________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE