Estes v. Jones ( 2023 )

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 MICHAEL ESTES, Case No. 3:21-cv-00214-ART-CLB 5 Plaintiff, ORDER 6 v. 7 DAWN JONES, et al., 8 Defendants. 9 Pro se Plaintiff Michael Estes brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 10 Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R” or 11 “Recommendation”) of United States Magistrate Judge Carla Baldwin (ECF No. 12 69), recommending dismissal of Plaintiff’s action without prejudice based on 13 Plaintiff’s failure to update his address as ordered by the Court on January 31, 14 2023 (ECF No. 63). Plaintiff had until March 16, 2023 to file an objection. To date, 15 no objection to the R&R has been filed. For this reason, and as explained below, 16 the Court adopts the R&R, and will dismiss this action. 17 The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings 18 or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where 19 a party fails to object to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, the Court is not 20 required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of 21 an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); see also United States v. 22 Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1116 (9th Cir. 2003) (“De novo review of the 23 magistrate judges’ findings and recommendations is required if, but only if, one 24 or both parties file objections to the findings and recommendations.”) (emphasis 25 in original); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory Committee Notes (1983) (providing that 26 the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the 27 record in order to accept the recommendation.”). 28 1 Because there is no objection, the Court need not conduct de novo review, || and is satisfied Judge Baldwin did not clearly err. Here, Judge Baldwin 3 || recommends dismissal of this action because Plaintiff has failed to update his 4 || address with the Court, which caused multiple mailings to be returned as 5 |} undeliverable and which contravenes the Court’s express order for Plaintiff to 6 || update his address. (ECF No. 69 at 1-2.) Judge Baldwin further recommends that 7 || Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be denied as moot in light of the 8 || recommended dismissal of this action for failure to provide an updated address. 9 || (Ud. at 3.) The Court agrees with Judge Baldwin. Having reviewed the R&R and 10 || the record in this case, the Court will adopt the R&R in full. 11 It is therefore ordered that Judge Baldwin’s Report and Recommendation 12 || (ECF No. 69) is accepted and adopted in full. 13 It is further ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based 14 || on Plaintiffs failure to provide an updated address in compliance with this 15 || Court’s January 31, 2023 order (ECF No. 63). 16 It is further ordered that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF 17 || No. 56) is denied as moot. 18 The Clerk of Court is directed to administratively close this case. 19 20 DATED THIS 29t day of June 2023. 21 22 on Arve Nossa 24 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25 26 27 28