Isaiah Hartford Herndon v. City of Reno, et al.

Opinion

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 4 Isaiah Hartford Herndon, Case No. 2:25-cv-00722-CDS-DJA

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

7 City of Reno, et al., [ECF No. 13]

8 Defendants

9 10 Plaintiff Isaiah Hartford Herndon initiated this civil rights lawsuit against the City of 11 Reno and two police officers without submitting an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) 12 or paying the civil case filing fee. So U.S. Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Albgrets ordered Herndon to 13 either file an IFP application or pay the $405 filing fee. Order, ECF No. 3. After several 14 unsuccessful attempts, Judge Albgrets granted Herndon IFP status but dismissed his first 15 amended complaint with leave to amend by October 27, 2025. Order, ECF No. 12. That deadline 16 passed without Herndon filing an amended complaint or otherwise responding, so Judge Albregts 17 issued a report and recommendation (R&R) that I dismiss this case. R&R, ECF No. 13. 18 Herndon had fourteen days—until February 16, 2026—to file any specific, written 19 objections to the magistrate judge’s R&R. Id. at 2 (citing Local Rule IB 3-2(a) (stating that parties 20 wishing to object to the findings and recommendations must file specific written objections 21 within fourteen days)); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) (same). That deadline also passed, and no 22 objections to the R&R are filed.1 The law is clear that “no review is required of a magistrate 23 judge’s report and recommendation unless objections are filed.” Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 24 25 1 Although the R&R was returned as undeliverable (see ECF No. 14), Judge Albregts’s prior order directing 26 Herndon to file an amended complaint was not returned as undeliverable. Herndon has therefore also failed to notify the court of his current address, a violation of Local Rule IA 3-1 (a “pro se party must immediately file with the court written notification of any change of mailing address”). 1 |[1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 2 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). 3 Although de novo review is not required, I nonetheless make an independent review here. 4 || Indeed, I find that the record demonstrates that, despite an opportunity to do so, Herndon did not 5 a second amended complaint. In light of this, Judge Albgrets considered the Carey v. King 6 dismissal factors and found they weighed in favor of dismissal. ECF No. 13 (citing 856 F.2d 1439, 7 (9th Cir. 1998)). L agree that dismissal is warranted. This litigation cannot move forward 8 || without the participation of the plaintiff, and because Herndon failed to update his address, 9 |/issuing another order is not a meaningful alternative in this circumstance. Carey, 856 F.2d at 1441 10 || “An order to show cause why dismissal was not warranted or an order imposing sanctions would 11|/only find itself taking a round trip tour through the United States mail.”). There are no alternative 12 ||sanctions other than dismissal when the court cannot contact Herndon to communicate the 13 |Jalternatives. For those reasons, I accept the R&R in its entirety and dismiss this matter. 14 Conclusion 15 It is hereby ordered that the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation [ECF No. 13] 16 accepted and adopted in full; therefore, Herndon’s first amended complaint is dismissed 17 || without prejudice. The Clerk of Court is kindly directed to enter judgment accordingly and to close 18 || this case. / ) 19 Dated: February 24, 2026 f/f 20 VA / — 21 Cristina). Silv Un test States District Judge 22 □ 23 24 25 26

XY