Roper v. State of Nevada et al

Filing 6

ORDER - Judge Baldwin's Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 5 ) is accepted and adopted in full. This case is dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. Signed by Chief Judge Miranda M. Du on 9/16/2022. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - HKL)

Download PDF
Case 3:22-cv-00314-MMD-CLB Document 6 Filed 09/16/22 Page 1 of 2 1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 *** 6 GENE ROPER, Plaintiff, 7 8 9 10 Case No. 3:22-cv-00314-MMD-CLB ORDER v. STATE OF NEVADA, et al., Defendants. 11 12 Pro se Plaintiff Gene Roper brings this action against Defendants under 42 U.S.C. 13 § 1983 for excessive force, retaliation, and false imprisonment. (ECF No. 1-1.) Before the 14 Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge 15 Carla L. Baldwin (ECF No. 5), recommending that the Court dismiss the case based on 16 Roper’s failure to update his address. Objections to the R&R were due September 13, 17 2022. To date, no objection has been filed. For this reason, and as explained below, the 18 Court adopts the R&R in full. 19 The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 20 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party 21 fails to object to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, the Court is not required to 22 conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas 23 v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 24 1116 (9th Cir. 2003) (“De novo review of the magistrate judges’ findings and 25 recommendations is required if, but only if, one or both parties file objections to the 26 findings and recommendations.”) (emphasis in original); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory 27 Committee Notes (1983) (providing that the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is no 28 clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”). Case 3:22-cv-00314-MMD-CLB Document 6 Filed 09/16/22 Page 2 of 2 1 Because there was no objection, the Court need not conduct de novo review, and 2 is satisfied that Judge Baldwin did not clearly err. Judge Baldwin correctly found that the 3 case should be dismissed because Roper failed to update his address. In an order on 4 July 25, 2022, Judge Baldwin directed Roper to update his address by August 24, 2022, 5 because the Nevada Department of Corrections inmate database showed that Roper was 6 no longer incarcerated. (ECF No. 3.) Judge Baldwin also warned Roper that his case may 7 be dismissed if he failed to update his address by the deadline. (Id.) To date, Roper has 8 failed to change his address or otherwise respond to Judge Baldwin’s July 25, 2022, 9 order. This action cannot realistically proceed without Roper’s participation or until and 10 unless Roper updates his address. It is also Roper’s responsibility to notify the Court of 11 any change in his address. See LR IA 3-1 (requiring pro se litigants to keep the Court 12 apprised of their address, or face dismissal). The Court will therefore adopt Judge 13 Baldwin’s R&R in full and dismiss the case without prejudice. 14 15 It is therefore ordered that Judge Baldwin’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 5) is accepted and adopted in full. 16 It is further ordered that this case is dismissed without prejudice. 17 The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. 18 DATED THIS 16th Day of September 2022. 19 20 21 MIRANDA M. DU CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?