Lawrence v. Minev

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 * * *

4 JOSEPH E. LAWRENCE, Case No. 2:22-cv-01782-APG-EJY

5 Plaintiff, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 6 v.

7 DR. MINEV, et al.,

8 Defendants.

9 10 On October 23, 2024, the Court entered an Order requiring Plaintiff to update his address in 11 accordance with Local Rule IA 3-1. ECF No. 57. The Court gave Plaintiff through and including 12 November 22, 2024 to comply with the Order. Id. The Court explained that failure to comply with 13 the terms of the Court’s Order would result in a recommendation to dismiss this case without 14 prejudice. Id. The Court’s Order was returned as undeliverable on November 4, 2024. ECF No. 15 58. As of today’s date, Plaintiff has not updated his address or otherwise communicated with the 16 Court. A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action or failure to 17 obey a court order. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992). 18 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this matter be dismissed without 19 prejudice in its entirety. 20 DATED this 4th day of December, 2024.

22 ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH 23 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

24 25 NOTICE 26 Under Local Rule IB 3-2, any objection to this Report and Recommendation must be in 27 writing and filed with the Clerk of the Court within fourteen (14) days. The Supreme Court holds 1 objections within the specified time. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985). The Ninth Circuit 2 also holds that (1) failure to file objections within the specified time, and (2) failure to properly 3 address and brief the objectionable issues waives the right to appeal the District Court’s order and/or 4 appeal factual issues from the order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th 5 Cir. 1991); Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27