Smith-Ostroumov v. Long

Opinion

2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 * * * 6 BRADLEY V. SMITH-OSTROUMOV, Case No. 3:18-cv-00582-MMD-CLB 7 Plaintiff, ORDER 8 v. 9 ANDRE LONG, et al., 10 Defendants. 11 Pro se Plaintiff Bradley V. Smith-Ostroumov brought this action under Title VII of 12 the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (ECF No. 2-1 at 4.) In a prior order, the Court dismissed 13 Plaintiff’s Complaint, but granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint by June 5, 14 2020. (ECF No. 39.) The Court explicitly stated in that order that, “Plaintiff may file an 15 amended complaint to cure the deficiencies discussed herein by June 5, 2020. Failure to 16 file an amended complaint within the prescribed time period will result in dismissal of this 17 action with prejudice.” (Id. at 6.) To date, Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint. 18 “Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), the district court may dismiss an action 19 for failure to comply with any order of the court.” Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 20 (9th Cir. 1992); see also id. at 1260-63 (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with an 21 order requiring amendment of complaint). And as a function of that power in this case, 22 the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s case with prejudice because Plaintiff has not filed an 23 amended complaint within the time provided by the Court, despite the Court’s order that 24 he must. 25 It is therefore ordered that this case is dismissed with prejudice. 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. 2 DATED THIS 16" Day of November 2020. 3 — 4 SA {Sho 5 □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ 6 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28