1

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 * * * 5 Beverly B., Case No. 2:23-cv-01234-JAD-DJA 6 Plaintiff, 7 Report and Recommendation v. 8 Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social 9 Security,

10 Defendant.

11 12 On August 12, 2025, the Court noted that Plaintiff Beverly B.’s brief was overdue. (ECF 13 No. 25). However, the Court also noted that it was unclear whether Plaintiff had received a copy 14 of the certified administrative record. (Id.). So, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file a status report 15 on or before September 26, 2025, explaining whether she received a copy of the certified 16 administrative record. (Id.). 17 Plaintiff filed a status report on September 10, 2025, along with a consent for electronic 18 service of documents. (ECF Nos. 27, 28). However, she did not inform the Court whether she 19 received a copy of the certified administrative record. So, on October 3, 2025, the Court ordered 20 the Commissioner to send Plaintiff a copy of the certified administrative record by email given 21 Plaintiff’s consent to electronic service of documents. (ECF No. 29). The Court further ordered 22 Plaintiff to file a status report on or before October 31, 2025, regarding whether she received the 23 certified administrative record from the Commissioner. (Id.). The Court informed Plaintiff that if 24 she “fails to timely comply with the requirements in this order, the Court may recommend 25 dismissal of this action without prejudice.” (Id.). Plaintiff has missed the deadline to file her 26 status report. The Court therefore recommends dismissal of this case without prejudice. 27 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) permits dismissal of an action for the failure to 1 dismiss an action under Rule 41(b), courts consider: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious 2 resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the 3 defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the 4 availability of less drastic sanctions. Carey v. King,

(9th Cir. 1998). 5 Here, because Plaintiff has not complied with this Court’s orders, the Court recommends 6 dismissal of Plaintiff’s case without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see LR IA 11-8(e). The 7 first factor weighs in favor of dismissal because the public has an interest in expeditious 8 resolution of litigation and Plaintiff’s repeated failure to comply with this Court’s orders impedes 9 this goal. The second factor weighs in favor of dismissal because the Court’s need to manage its 10 docket is thwarted by Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this Court’s orders or prosecute this 11 action. The third factor weighs in favor of dismissal because the Commissioner is prejudiced by 12 expending resources to continue defending this case while Plaintiff does not comply with her 13 obligations to prosecute it. The fourth factor weighs in favor of Plaintiff, but does not outweigh 14 the other factors. Fifth, the Court has no less drastic sanctions when Plaintiff has not complied 15 with this Court’s orders. And given Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status, monetary sanctions are 16 not practical. Nor are other non-monetary sanctions an option if Plaintiff chooses not to follow 17 Court orders. The fifth factor weighs in favor of dismissal. The Court thus recommends 18 dismissing Plaintiff’s case without prejudice. A dismissal without prejudice allows Plaintiff to 19 file a new case with the Court, under a new case number. 20 21 IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that this case be dismissed without 22 prejudice. The Clerk of Court is kindly directed to email Plaintiff a copy of this 23 recommendation at her email address, [email protected]. 24 25 26 /// 27 /// 1 NOTICE 2 Pursuant to Local Rule IB 3-2 any objection to this Report and Recommendation must be 3 in writing and filed with the Clerk of the Court within fourteen (14) days after service of this 4 Notice. The Supreme Court has held that the courts of appeal may determine that an appeal has 5 been waived due to the failure to file objections within the specified time. Thomas v. Arn, 474

, 142 (1985) reh’g denied,

(1986). The Ninth Circuit has also held that 7 (1) failure to file objections within the specified time and (2) failure to properly address and brief 8 the objectionable issues waives the right to appeal the District Court’s order and/or appeal factual 9 issues from the order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst,

(9th Cir. 1991); 10 Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch. Dist.,

, 454 (9th Cir. 1983); see Miranda v. 11 Anchondo,

(9th Cir. 2012). 12 13 DATED: November 6, 2025 14 DANIEL J. ALBREGTS 15 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27