Skinner v. Reed

Opinion

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 RODERICK SKINNER, I, Case No. 3:23-cv-00098-MMD-BNW

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 EDWARD T. REED, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 Pro se Plaintiff Roderick Skinner, who is incarcerated at Northern Nevada 12 Correctional Center, brings this action against Defendants Edward T. Reed, Esq. and 13 Edward T. Reed, PLLC under 42 U.S.C. § 1985, 42 U.S.C. § 1986, Nev. Rev. Stat § 14 197.200, and RICO. Before the Court is United States Magistrate Judge Brenda N. 15 Weksler’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (ECF No. 33), recommending that the 16 Court dismiss this action for failure to file an amended complaint by the court-ordered 17 deadline. Plaintiff had until July 11, 2025, to file an objection. (ECF No. 32.) To date, 18 Plaintiff has not filed an objection to the R&R. For this reason, and as explained below, 19 the Court adopts the R&R in full, and grants dismisses the case without prejudice. 20 Because there is no objection, the Court need not conduct de novo review. See 21 United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1116 (9th Cir. 2003) (“De novo review of 22 the magistrate judges’ findings and recommendations is required if, but only if, one or 23 both parties file objections to the findings and recommendations.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, 24 advisory committee note to 1983 amendment (providing that the Court “need only satisfy 25 itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the 26 recommendation”). Having reviewed the R&R, Judge Weksler did not clearly err. In the 27 R&R, Judge Weksler considers dismissal for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s 28 order to file a third amended complaint by June 7, 2025. As Judge Weksler notes, Plaintiff 1 || neither filed an amended complaint nor moved for an extension to do so. (ECF No. 33 at 2 || 1.) The Court agrees with Judge Weksler that of the five factors a court must consider 3 || when deciding to dismiss an action, the first four factors weigh in favor of dismissal, and 4 || though dismissal is a drastic outcome, the Court also agrees that the present action 5 || cannot proceed without an operative complaint. (/d. at 1-2.) Accordingly, the Court adopts 6 || Judge Weksler’s recommendations to dismiss this case without prejudice for failure to file 7 || an amended complaint by the court-ordered deadline. 8 It is therefore ordered that Judge Weksler’s Report and Recommendation (ECF 9 || No. 33) is accepted and adopted in full. 10 It is further ordered that Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 26) is 11 || dismissed without prejudice. 12 The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. 13 DATED THIS 24" Day of July 2025.

15 MIRANDA M. DU 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28