From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brooks v. Nev. Dep't of Corr.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA
May 29, 2020
Case No. 3:19-cv-00623-MMD-WGC (D. Nev. May. 29, 2020)

Opinion

Case No. 3:19-cv-00623-MMD-WGC

05-29-2020

ANTHONY BROOKS, Plaintiff, v. NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et. al., Defendants.


ORDER

Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of United States Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb recommending that this case be dismissed for Plaintiff Anthony Brook's failure to submit a second amended complaint correcting the deficiencies of his first amended complaint noted in the screening order. (ECF No. 17.) Plaintiff has not filed an objection to the R&R, although he had until May 25, 2020, to do so. (Id.) The Court will adopt the R&R and dismiss this case.

This Court "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party fails to object to a magistrate's recommendation, the Court is not required to conduct "any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection." Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2003) ("De novo review of the magistrate judges' findings and recommendations is required if, but only if, one or both parties file objections to the findings and recommendations.") (emphasis in original); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory Committee Notes (1983) (providing that the court "need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation").

The Court finds it unnecessary to engage in de novo review to determine whether to adopt Judge Cobb's R&R and is satisfied that there is no clear error upon reviewing the docket. Plaintiff was advised that failure to submit a second amended complaint by May 2, 2020, would result in dismissal of this case. (ECF No. 16.) That date has long passed, and Plaintiff has provided no such complaint. The Court therefore agrees with the R&R that dismissal of this action is warranted. See Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of L. A., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986) (recognizing that district courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and "[i]n the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal" of a case); Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissing case for failure to comply with court order).

It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb (ECF No. 17) is accepted and adopted in full.

It is further ordered that this case is dismissed without prejudice.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

DATED THIS 29th day of May 2020.

/s/_________

MIRANDA M. DU

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Brooks v. Nev. Dep't of Corr.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA
May 29, 2020
Case No. 3:19-cv-00623-MMD-WGC (D. Nev. May. 29, 2020)
Case details for

Brooks v. Nev. Dep't of Corr.

Case Details

Full title:ANTHONY BROOKS, Plaintiff, v. NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et. al.…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA

Date published: May 29, 2020

Citations

Case No. 3:19-cv-00623-MMD-WGC (D. Nev. May. 29, 2020)