Kenney v. Guerro et al

Filing 20

ORDER - It is ordered that Judge Baldwin's Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 19 ) is accepted and adopted in full.It is further ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on Kenney's failure to ident ify Defendant Colbert or show cause as to why the case should not be dismissed, in compliance with this Court's May 11, June 2, and July 22, 2021 orders. (ECF Nos. 14 , 16 , 18 .) The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. Signed by Chief Judge Miranda M. Du on 9/9/2021. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SMR)

Case 3:20-cv-00366-MMD-CLB Document 20 Filed 09/09/21 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5

***

6

JOHN KENNEY,

7
8
9

v.

Case No. 3:20-cv-00366-MMD-CLB
Plaintiff,

ORDER

GUERRO, et al.,
Defendants.

10
11

Pro se Plaintiff John Kenney brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the

12

Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R” or “Recommendation”) of United States

13

Magistrate Judge Carla Baldwin (ECF No. 19), recommending the Court dismiss this

14

action without prejudice. Kenney had until September 1, 2021 to file an objection. To date,

15

no objection to the R&R has been filed. For this reason, and as explained below, the

16

Court adopts the R&R, and will dismiss the action without prejudice.

17

The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

18

recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party

19

fails to object to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, the Court is not required to

20

conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas

21

v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114,

22

1116 (9th Cir. 2003) (“De novo review of the magistrate judges’ findings and

23

recommendations is required if, but only if, one or both parties file objections to the

24

findings and recommendations.”) (emphasis in original); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory

25

Committee Notes (1983) (providing that the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is no

26

clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”).

27

///

28

///

Case 3:20-cv-00366-MMD-CLB Document 20 Filed 09/09/21 Page 2 of 2

1

Because there is no objection, the Court need not conduct de novo review, and is

2

satisfied Judge Baldwin did not clearly err. Here, Judge Baldwin recommends that the

3

Court dismiss this action without prejudice because Kenney and the Office of the Attorney

4

General (“Attorney General”) are unable to identify the only remaining named Defendant

5

(Defendant “Colbert”) in the case. (ECF No. 19 at 3, 5.) LR IA 11-8 states that “[t]he court

6

may, after notice and an opportunity to be heard, impose any and all appropriate

7

sanctions on an attorney or party who: . . . (e) [f]ails to comply with an order of this court.”

8

After an extensive search, the Attorney General could not find any employee with the last

9

name “Colbert.” (ECF Nos. 8, 12.) In three separate orders, the Court provided Kenney

10

with opportunities to identify Defendant “Colbert” or show cause as to why this case

11

should not be dismissed. (ECF Nos. 14, 16, 18.) Kenney failed to comply with the Court’s

12

orders and has not responded to two of the orders, despite multiple warnings that his

13

case might be dismissed. (Id.) As a result of Kenney’s non-compliance, Defendant

14

“Colbert” cannot be served and the case cannot advance to discovery, where Defendant

15

Jane Doe in the complaint might be identified. (ECF No. 19 at 3, 5.) Thus, the Court

16

agrees with Judge Baldwin. Having reviewed the R&R and the record in this case, the

17

Court will adopt the R&R in full.

18
19

It is therefore ordered that Judge Baldwin’s Report and Recommendation (ECF
No. 19) is accepted and adopted in full.

20

It is further ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on

21

Kenney’s failure to identify Defendant “Colbert” or show cause as to why the case should

22

not be dismissed, in compliance with this Court’s May 11, June 2, and July 22, 2021

23

orders. (ECF Nos. 14, 16, 18.)

24

The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case.

25

DATED THIS 9th Day of September 2021.

26
27
28

MIRANDA M. DU
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2