Smith v. Saul ( 2021 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA ANGELA V. SMITH, Case No.: 2:20-cv-00710-APG-VCF 4 Plaintiff Order Accepting Report and Recommendation and Dismissing Case v. [ECF No. 52] ANDREW SAUL, 7 Defendant 8 On September 28, 2021, Magistrate Judge Ferenbach recommended that I dismiss this case because plaintiff Angela Smith failed to appear for two court hearings, failed to respond to an order to show case, and has not made an appearance in the case since June 15, 2021. ECF No. Smith did not object. Thus, I am not obligated to conduct a de novo review of the report and 12}|recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (requiring district courts to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings to which objection is 14! made”); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (“the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if 16}| objection is made, but not otherwise” (emphasis in original)). 17 I THEREFORE ORDER that Judge Ferenbach’s report and recommendation (ECF No. is accepted and plaintiff Angela Smith’s complaint (ECF No. 4) is dismissed with 19}! prejudice for failure to comply with court orders and failure to prosecute. The clerk of court is instructed to enter judgment accordingly and to close this case. 21 DATED this 22nd day of October, 2021. 22 OIE ANDREWP.GORDON. SS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE