Williams v. Clark County Ex Rel

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: January 19, 2023
• Docket: 2:22-cv-00045
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3

4 Case No.: 2:22-cv-00045-CDS-EJY 5 Kenneth Williams,

6 Plaintiff Order Adopting Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge 7 v. [ECF No. 15] 8 Clark County, et al.,

9 Defendants

10 11 This is a civil rights action brought by pro se plaintiff Kenneth Williams. On January 11, 12 2022, United States Magistrate Judge Elayna J. Youchah issued an order denying plaintiff’s 13 application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) and dismissing the complaint without prejudice 14 with leave to amend. ECF No. 3. Williams’ first amended complaint was timely filed. ECF No. 6. 15 Following screening, the magistrate judge recommended that some claims asserted by Williams 16 be dismissed with prejudice, and other claims be dismissed with leave to amend. R&R, ECF No. 17 12. The R&R further recommended that Williams have until July 15, 2022, to file a second 18 amended complaint setting forth a claim upon which relief may be granted, noting that failing to 19 file a second amended complaint would result in a recommendation for dismissal. Id. at 9. 20 Williams did not take any action. It is possible that he did not receive a copy of the R&R 21 because, even though Williams updated his address with the Clerk of Court (ECF No. 11), his 22 mail was again returned undeliverable. See ECF No. 14. However, failure to maintain his address 23 is a violation of Local Rule IA 3-1, which requires that a pro se party file with the court written 24 notification of any change of mailing address, email address, or telephone number. LR IA 3-1. 25 Failure to comply may result in the dismissal of the action, entry of default judgment, or other 26 sanctions as deemed appropriate by the court. Id. 1 On December 23, 2022, the magistrate judge issued a third report and recommendation 2 that I dismiss this action for failing to comply with the court’s prior order. ECF No. 15. The 3 R&R recommended dismissal for plaintiff’s failure to file a second amended complaint. Id. Under 4 the local rules, Williams had fourteen days to file any objections to the R&R. Local Rule IB 3- 5 2(a) (stating that a party who objects to a report and recommendation from a magistrate judge 6 must file a written objection supported by points and authorities within fourteen days of being 7 served with the report and recommendation). Any objections to Magistrate Judge Youchah’s 8 R&R were thus due fourteen days after December 23, 2022, i.e., January 6, 2023. Id. at 2. As of the 9 date of this order, plaintiff has failed to file a second amended complaint or to file objections to 10 the third R&R. 11 “[N]o review is required of a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation unless 12 objections are filed.” Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003); see also Thomas 13 v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). 14 While de novo review is not required because Williams failed to file objections, I nevertheless 15 conducted a de novo review of the issues set forth in the report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 16 636(b)(1). When reviewing the order of a magistrate judge, the order should only be set aside if 17 the order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); LR IB 3-1(a); 28 U.S.C. § 18 636(b)(1)(A); Laxalt v. McClatchy, 602 F. Supp. 214, 216 (D. Nev. 1985). A magistrate judge’s order 19 is “clearly erroneous” if the court has “a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been 20 committed.” United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948); Burdick v. Comm’r IRS, 979 21 F.2d 1369, 1370 (9th Cir. 1992). “An order is contrary to law when it fails to apply or misapplies 22 relevant statutes, case law or rules of procedure.” UnitedHealth Grp., Inc. v. United Healthcare, Inc., 23 2014 WL 4635882, at *1 (D. Nev. Sept. 16, 2014). A review of the docket shows that Williams 24 failed to file a second amended complaint on or before the July 15, 2022, deadline. Accordingly, I 25 find that Magistrate Judge Youchah’s R&R was not clearly erroneous or contrary to the law and 26 adopt it in its entirety. 1 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and 2 Recommendation [ECF No. 15] is ADOPTED in its entirety. 3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is dismissed with prejudice and the Clerk 4 of Court is directed to close the case. 5 DATED: January 19, 2023 6 ______________________________________ Cristina D. Silva 7 United States District Judge 8

11 12 13 14 15

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26