Stevenson et al v. The United States of America et al
ORDER Adopting 3 Report and Recommendation and Dismissing this matter without prejudice. The Clerk shall enter Judgment and close this case. Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 9/8/2021. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRS)
Case 2:21-cv-01284-JAD-NJK Document 4 Filed 09/08/21 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
4 Daniel H. Stevenson, et al.,
8 United States of America, et al.,
Case No.: 2:21-cv-01284-JAD-NJK
Order Adopting Report & Recommendation
and Dismissing Action
[ECF No. 3]
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.
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
ECF No. 2.
ECF No. 3.
United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003).
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).
Case 2:21-cv-01284-JAD-NJK Document 4 Filed 09/08/21 Page 2 of 2
1 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. 5
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. 6 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,7 and the Ninth Circuit recognizes that such a warning satisfies the fifth
10 factor’s “consideration of alternatives” requirement. 8 The fourth factor—the public policy
11 favoring disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors favoring
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the magistrate judge’s report and
14 recommendation [ECF No. 3] is ADOPTED in full;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT this case is dismissed. The Clerk of Court is
16 directed to ENTER JUDGMENT ACCORDINGLY and CLOSE THIS CASE.
U.S. District Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey
Dated: September 8, 2021
Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002).
See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976).
ECF Nos. 8, 9.
In re Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1237 (9th Cir. 2006).
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?