United States District Court, D. Nevada
Steven J. Bank, Plaintiff
Nevada DPS et al., Defendants
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION, DENYING MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, AND DISMISSING
CASE [ECF NOS. 6, 7]
Jennifer A. Dorsey, Judge
Bank brings this civil-rights action, alleging that the
defendants-who include law enforcement officers, Eighth
Judicial District Court Judges, and Nevada's
Governor-violated his First Amendment right to petition the
court by precluding him from obtaining pauper status to sue
to quiet title to the property he's squatting
Bank also moves for a preliminary injunction.Magistrate Judge
George Foley granted Bank's request for pauper status in
this action, recommends that Bank's claims against the
judges for damages be dismissed with prejudice, that his
claim for injunctive relief against Judge Barker be dismissed
based on Younger abstention, and that his motion for
preliminary injunction be denied. He also dismissed all
remaining claims without prejudice and with leave to amend.
Bank's amended complaint was due May 22, 2017, and Judge
Foley's R&R warned that if he failed to file an
amended complaint and cure the deficiencies in his claim,
“the Court will recommend that the complaint be
dismissed with prejudice.” His objections to the report
and recommendation were due by May 14, 2014.
filed no objections and no amended complaint. “[N]o
review is required of a magistrate judge's report and
recommendation unless objections are
filed.” I adopt the magistrate judge's report
and recommendation, dismiss this case with prejudice, and
deny the motion for preliminary injunction as moot.
courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and
“[i]n the exercise of that power, they may impose
sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal”
of a case. A court may dismiss an action based on a
party's failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a
court order, or failure to comply with local
rules. In determining whether to dismiss an
action on one of these grounds, the court must consider: (1)
the public's interest in expeditious resolution of
litigation; (2) the court's need to manage its docket;
(3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public
policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5)
the availability of less drastic alternatives.
first two factors, the public's interest in expeditiously
resolving this litigation and the court's interest in
managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissal. It appears
that Bank has abandoned this case and has failed to comply
with his obligation as a litigant to keep the court apprised
of his mailing address. This conduct makes it difficult for
this court to expeditiously resolve this case in any other
manner and effectively manage its docket.
third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in
favor of dismissal because a presumption of injury arises
from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a
pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an
action. A court's warning to a party that its
failure to obey the court's order will result in
dismissal satisfies the fifth factor's
“consideration of alternatives”
requirement.Bank was clearly warned that his failure
to file a timely amended complaint could result in the
dismissal of this case with prejudice. Local Rule IA
3-1 also imposes a clear obligation on pro se parties to
“immediately file with the court written notification
of any change of mailing address” with the caveat that
“[f]ailure to comply with this rule may result in the
dismissal of the action . . . or other sanctions . . .
.” The fourth factor-the public policy
favoring disposition of cases on their merits-is greatly
outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal here. And
because I am dismissing this action with prejudice, leaving
no claim remaining, I accept Judge Foley's recommendation
in this regard, too, and deny the motion for preliminary
with good cause appearing and no reason to delay, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Judge Foley's
report and recommendation [ECF No. 7] is ACCEPTED and
ADOPTED; this case is DISMISSED with prejudice; and
Bank's motion for a preliminary injunction [ECF No. 6] is
DENIED. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment . .
. accordingly and CLOSE THIS CASE.
 ECF No. 1.
 ECF No. 6.
 ECF No. 7 at 5.