Estrada v. Federal Reserve Bank

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: June 15, 2023
• Docket: 2:23-cv-00494
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * * 6 MICHAEL ESTRADA, Case No. 2:23-cv-00494-MMD-BNW

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 FEDERAL RESERVE BANK, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 Pro se Plaintiff Michael Estrada brings this action against Defendants Federal 12 Reserve Bank and Jerome Powell under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.) Before the Court 13 is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Brenda 14 Weksler, recommending that the Court dismiss the case due to Plaintiff’s failure to update 15 his address. (ECF No. 7.) Plaintiff’s objection to the R&R was due June 14, 2023. To date, 16 Plaintiff has not objected to the R&R. For this reason, and as explained below, the Court 17 adopts the R&R in full and dismisses this case without prejudice. 18 Because there was no objection, the Court need not conduct de novo review, and 19 is satisfied that Judge Weksler did not clearly err. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 20 F.3d 1114, 1116 (9th Cir. 2003) (“De novo review of the magistrate judges’ findings and 21 recommendations is required if, but only if, one or both parties file objections to the 22 findings and recommendations”) (emphasis in original); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory 23 Committee Notes (1983) (providing that the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is no 24 clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation”). Judge 25 Weksler previously ordered Plaintiff to update his address by May 24, 2023, because the 26 U.S. Postal Service had been unable to deliver a recent filing in his case. (ECF Nos. 4, 27 5.) In that order, Judge Weksler also warned Plaintiff that his failure to update his address 1 || pro se litigants to keep the Court apprised of their address, or face dismissal). The 2 || deadline has passed, and despite receiving adequate warning, Plaintiff has not filed his 3 || updated address, requested an extension, or otherwise responded to Judge Weksler’s 4 || order or R&R. Accordingly, the Court adopts Judge Weksler’s R&R in full and dismisses 5 || the case without prejudice. See Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of L.A., 782 F.2d 829, 6 || 831 (9th Cir. 1986); Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987). 7 It is therefore ordered that Judge Weksler’s Report and Recommendation (ECF 8 || No. 7) is accepted and adopted in full. 9 It is further ordered that this case is dismissed without prejudice. 10 The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. 11 DATED THIS 15!" Day of June 2023. _

13 MIRANDA M.DU— 14 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28