Harris v. Los Angeles County

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 * * *

7 TYLER HARRIS, Case No.2:25-CV-211 JCM (DJA)

8 Plaintiff(s), ORDER 9 v.

10 LOS ANGELES COUNTY, et al.,

11 Defendant(s).

12 13 Presently before the court is Magistrate Judge Albregts’s report and recommendation 14 (“R&R”) to dismiss this action without prejudice. (ECF No. 4). The court may dismiss an action 15 based on a party’s failure to prosecute or comply with a court order. (Id. at 1). After considering 16 the factors set forth in Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439 (9th Cir. 1998), Judge Albregts recommends 17 that this case be dismissed. (Id. at 2). 18 No objections were filed to the R&R. Thus, the court is not obligated to conduct a de novo 19 review of the R&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (requiring courts to “make a de novo determination of 20 those portions of the report or specified proposed findings to which objection is made”); United 21 States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (“[T]he district judge must 22 review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not 23 otherwise.”). 24 Accordingly, 25 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that Judge Albregts’s R&R 26 (ECF No. 4) be, and the same hereby is, ADOPTED, in full. 27 . . . 28 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. The clerk 2 of the court is INSTRUCTED to enter judgment in favor of defendants and close this case. 3 DATED May 21, 2025. 4 ____________________________________________ 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28