Gorman v. Tamaso

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 6 RICKEY LEE GORMAN, Case No. 2:22-cv-01678-JAD-NJK 7 Plaintiff(s), ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 8 v. RECOMMENDATION 9 BRITTANY TAMASO, ECF No. 48 10 Defendant 11 On 3/3/25, the magistrate judge entered this report and recommendation: 12 13 The Court’s orders are being returned as undeliverable to Plaintiff. E.g., Docket No. 45. 14 The Court ordered Plaintiff to either remove any impediment to receiving mail at his identified 15 location or to update his address as warranted. Docket No. 46. The Court warned that “[f]ailure 16 to comply with this order may result in dismissal.” Id. (emphasis in original). That order has 17 itself been returned as undeliverable, Docket No. 47, and Plaintiff has not complied with the 18 Court’s order. 19 “A party, not the district court, bears the burden of keeping the court apprised of any 20 changes in his mailing address.” Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1441 (9th Cir. 1988) (per curiam); 21 see also in re Hammer, 940 F.2d 524, 526 (9th Cir. 1991). To that end, the local rules require that 22 litigants immediately file written notification of any change of address, and the local rules 23 expressly warn that failure to do so may result in case-dispositive sanctions. See Local Rule IA 3- 24 1. In addition, dismissal may be warranted for failing to comply with the Court’s orders. E.g., 25 Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f)(1)(C).1 26 1 These issues arise frequently when a litigant fails to notify the Court of a change of address. It is unclear in this case whether Plaintiff has actually moved or his mailbox has been 27 removed from his property. Either way, the Court is unable to communicate with him. Dismissal is warranted either for Plaintiff failing to update his address or for failing to comply with the 28 Court’s orders. ] Plaintiff has disobeyed the local rules and the Court’s orders. Plaintiff's disobedience is an abusive litigation practice that has interfered with the Court’s ability to hear this case, delayed 3| litigation, disrupted the Court’s timely management of its docket, wasted judicial resources, and 4] threatened the integrity of the Court’s orders and the orderly administration of justice. Sanctions 5] less drastic than dismissal are unavailable because Plaintiff has refused to comply with the orders 6] of this Court notwithstanding the warning that case-dispositive sanctions may be imposed. 7 Accordingly, in light of the circumstances outlined above, the undersigned 8] RECOMMENDS that this case be DISMISSED without prejudice. 9 Dated: March 3, 2025

Nancy J. Koppe © 11 United States Magistrate Judge 12 13 ORDER 14 The deadline for any party to object to this recommendation was 3/17/25, and no party 15] filed anything or asked to extend the deadline to do so. “[N]o review is required of a magistrate 16] judge’s report and recommendation unless objections are filed.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 17] 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Having reviewed the report and recommendation, I find 18] good cause to adopt it, and I do. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s 19] Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 48] is ADOPTED in its entirety. This case is 20] DISMISSED, and the Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE THIS CASE. 21 2 USS. DistrictYudge Jen A. Dorsey 23 Dated: March 19, 2025 24 25 26 27 28