Ball v. Park MGM Casino, LLC

Opinion

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5

6 WILLIAM H. BALL, Case No. 2:24-cv-01753-CDS-NJK 7 Plaintiff(s), REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 8 v.

9 PARK MGM CASINO, LLC, 10 Defendant(s). 11 Plaintiff has failed to update his address. See Docket Nos. 13, 14. “A party, not the district 12 court, bears the burden of keeping the court apprised of any changes in [her] mailing address.” 13 Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1441 (9th Cir. 1988) (per curiam); see also In re Hammer, 940 F.2d 14 524, 526 (9th Cir. 1991). To that end, the local rules require that litigants immediately file written 15 notification of any change of address, and the local rules expressly warn that failure to do so may 16 result in case-dispositive sanctions. See Local Rule IA 3-1. 17 On February 6, 2025, the Court ordered Plaintiff to update his address by February 25, 18 2025, and warned that failing to do so may result in dismissal. Docket No. 16. Despite that 19 warning, Plaintiff has not updated his address. 20 Plaintiff has disobeyed the local rules and the Court’s order requiring prompt updating of 21 a litigant’s address. Plaintiff’s failure to update his address, his disobedience with the local rules, 22 and his disobedience of the Court’s orders are abusive litigation practices that have interfered with 23 the Court’s ability to hear this case, delayed litigation, disrupted the Court’s timely management 24 of its docket, wasted judicial resources, and threatened the integrity of the Court’s orders and the 25 orderly administration of justice. Sanctions less drastic than dismissal are unavailable because 26 Plaintiff has refused to comply with the orders of this Court notwithstanding the warning that case- 27 dispositive sanctions may be imposed. 28 ] Accordingly, in light of the circumstances outlined above, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that this case be DISMISSED without prejudice. 3 Dated: March 3, 2025 Nancy J. Koppe 5 United States Magistrate Judge 6 7 NOTICE 8 This report and recommendation is submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A party who objects to this report and 10] recommendation must file a written objection supported by points and authorities within fourteen 11] days of being served with this report and recommendation. Local Rule IB 3-2(a). Failure to file 12] a timely objection may waive the right to appeal the district court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 13] F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991). 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28