Stevenson v. The United States of America ( 2021 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Case No.: 2:21-cv-01284-JAD-NJK 4 Daniel H. Stevenson, et al., 5 Plaintiffs Order Adopting Report & Recommendation 6 and Dismissing Action v. 7 United States of America, et al., 8 [ECF No. 3] 9 Defendants 10 11 Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit without paying the required filing fee or submitting an 12 application to proceed in forma pauperis. So, on July 16, 2021, the court ordered them to do so 13 by August 6, 2021, warning them that the failure to do so would “result in a recommendation to 14 the District Judge that this case be dismissed.”1 That deadline passed with no action, so the 15 magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation to dismiss this case without prejudice.2 16 The deadline for the plaintiffs to object to that recommendation similarly passed with no action. 17 “[N]o review is required of a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation unless objections 18 are filed.”3 Having reviewed the R&R, I find good cause to adopt it, and I do. 19 A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute his case or obey a 20 court order.4 In determining whether to dismiss an action on one of these grounds, the court 21 must consider: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need 22 23 1 ECF No. 2. 24 2 ECF No. 3. 25 3 United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). 26 27 4 See Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal 28 for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). ] || to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring 2 || disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives.° 3 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the 4 || court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissal. The third factor, risk of 5 || prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of injury arises 6 || from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or 7 || prosecuting an action.® The court has also evaluated less drastic alternatives by issuing a 8 || warning to the plaintiffs that their failure to pay the fee or submit a completed pauper application 9 || would result in dismissal,’ and the Ninth Circuit recognizes that such a warning satisfies the fifth 10 || factor’s “consideration of alternatives” requirement.* The fourth factor—the public policy 11 || favoring disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors favoring 12 || dismissal. 13 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the magistrate judge’s report and 14 || recommendation [ECF No. 3] is ADOPTED in full; 15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT this case is dismissed. The Clerk of Court is 16 || directed to ENTER JUDGMENT ACCORDINGLY and CLOSE THIS CASE. 17 18 wewenf IES, Dorsey 19 Dated: September 8, 2021 20 21 22 23 aif 25 > Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002). 26 ||° See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). 27 ||’ ECF Nos. 8, 9. 28 In re Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1237 (9th Cir. 2006).