Sainvil v. Printy

Filing 22

ORDER that Magistrate Judge Hoffman's 20 Report and Recommendation is accepted. Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED. Signed by Judge Andrew P. Gordon on 4/3/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 JUNIOR SAINVIL,
4

Plaintiff

Case No.: 2:18-cv-01121-APG-CWH
Order Accepting Report and
Recommendation and Dismissing Case

5 v.
[ECF No. 20]
6 MICHAEL P. PRINTY,
7
8

Defendant
On March 8, 2019, Magistrate Judge Hoffman recommended that I dismiss this case

9 because plaintiff Junior Sainvil has failed to comply with court orders. ECF No. 20. Sainvil did
10 not file an objection. Thus, I am not obligated to conduct a de novo review of the report and
11 recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (requiring district courts to “make a de novo
12 determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings to which objection is
13 made”); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (“the
14 district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if
15 objection is made, but not otherwise” (emphasis in original)).
16

Additionally, Judge Hoffman’s report and recommendation was returned in the mail.

17 ECF No. 11. Under Local Rule IA 3-1, a pro se party must immediately advise the court of any
18 change of address. “Failure to comply with this rule may result in the dismissal of the action,
19 entry of default judgment, or other sanctions as deemed appropriate by the court.” LR IA 3-1.
20

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Judge Hoffman’s report and recommendation (ECF

21 No. 20) is accepted. Plaintiff Junior Sainvil’s complaint is DISMISSED.
22

DATED this 3rd day of April, 2019.

23
ANDREW P. GORDON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE