Ball v. Silverton Casino, LLC

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: January 16, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-01755
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 4 William H. Ball, Case No. 2:24-cv-01755-CDS-NJK

5 Plaintiff Order Adopting Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation 6 v.

7 Silverton Casino, LLC, [ECF Nos. 1, 6] 8 Defendant

9 10 Plaintiff William Ball commenced this age discrimination lawsuit against the Silverton 11 Casino by filing a complaint and an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). ECF No. 1. 12 United States Magistrate Judge Nancy Koppe reviewed Ball’s complaint and found that Ball 13 failed to attach the right-to-sue letter issued showing that he had exhausted his administrative 14 remedies prior to filing suit. Order, ECF No. 5 at 2 Because the court has a duty to ensure that it 15 has subject matter jurisdiction over the dispute before it, Judge Koppe ordered Ball to show 16 cause why this case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, by providing 17 a copy of the right to sue letter, by November 12, 2024. Id. That deadline passed without any 18 response from Ball, so Judge Koppe recommends dismissal without prejudice. R&R, ECF No. 6. 19 Ball had until December 20, 2024, to object to that recommendation. Id. (citing Local Rule IB 3- 20 2(a) (stating that parties wishing to object to an R&R must file objections within fourteen 21 days)); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) (same). To date, Ball has neither objected nor moved for 22 an extension of the time to do so. “[N]o review is required of a magistrate judge’s report and 23 recommendation unless objections are filed.” Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. 24 Ariz. 2003); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 25 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). 26 1 The law permits a district court to dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to comply with a court order. Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987). Generally, in 3|| determining whether to dismiss an action on this ground, the court must consider: (1) the 4|| public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. In re Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. 7|| Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Malone, 833 F.2d at 130). However, Ball failed 8|| to satisfy his burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction, so I do not address those factors here. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (setting forth requirements for federal question jurisdiction); Ashoffv. 10]| City of Ukiah, 130 F.3d 409, 410 (9th Cir. 1997) (stating that the plaintiff has the burden of 11} establishing subject matter jurisdiction). Because Ball has not lodged any objection to the 12|| R&R’s recommendation of dismissal, nor has he established that this court has jurisdiction over this dispute, I find that dismissal of Ball’s case is appropriate. Fed. R. Civ. P.12(h)(3) (If the 14]| court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the 15|| action.”). Judge Koppe’s R&R is accepted and adopted. 16 Conclusion 17 It is therefore ordered that the report and recommendation [ECF No. 6] is adopted in 18|| its entirety. This action is now dismissed without prejudice. Ball’s application to proceed in 19]| forma pauperis [ECF No. 1] is denied as moot. 20 The Clerk of Court is kindly instructed to enter judgment accordingly, and to close this case. 22 Dated: January 16, 2025 ) { 23 LZ cai bg 55 States District Judge 26