United States District Court, D. Nevada
before the court is Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen's
report and recommendation. (ECF No. 12). Plaintiff Santoro
Hill did not file an objection and the time to do so has
before the court is defendant Geico Casualty Insurance
Company's (“Geico”) motion to dismiss. (ECF
No. 10). Hill did not file a response and the time to do so
action arises from a motor vehicle collision. (ECF No. 1). On
June 19, 2016, Hill and an unknown driver were turning their
vehicles left onto Valley View Boulevard. Id. During
the turn, the unknown driver hit the rear of Hill's
pickup truck. Id. Hill's truck swung to the
right, came in contact with a puddle of water, and then
fishtailed down Valley View Boulevard until Hill crashed into
a wall. Id.
time of the collision, Hill had an uninsured/underinsured
motorist insurance policy with Geico. Id. Geico
represents that the policy provided $50, 000/$ 100, 000 in
uninsured motorist benefits. (ECF No. 10). Hill eventually
demanded that Geico pay the full policy limit. (ECF No. 1).
Geico allegedly refused to make adequate payment in
accordance with the insurance policy. Id.
18, 2018, Hill initiated this action in state court,
asserting two causes of action: (1) breach of contract and
(2) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing. Id. On July 20, 2018, Geico removed this
action to federal court. Id.
August 23, 2018, Hill's counsel withdrew and the court
ordered plaintiff to retain substitute counsel or file a
notice that he will proceed pro se on or before
September 21, 2018. (ECF No. 8). On November 14, 2018, the
court ordered Hill to show cause as to why the court should
not sanction Hill for failing to comply with a court order.
(ECF No. 9). The court warned Hill that if he did not show
cause by November 27, 2018, the court may dismiss this
action. Id. To date, Hill has not complied with the
November 14, 2018, order.
Geico moves to dismiss this action pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 41(b). (ECF No. 10). The magistrate judge
has filed a report and recommendation in which she recommends
granting Geico's motion. (ECF No. 12).
court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in
part, the findings or recommendations made by the
magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party
timely objects to a magistrate judge's report and
recommendation, then the court is required to “make a
de novo determination of those portions of the [report and
recommendation] to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C.
party fails to object, however, the court is not required to
conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is
not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v.
Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit
has recognized that a district court is not required to
review a magistrate judge's report and recommendation
where no objections have been filed. See United States v.
Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2003) (disregarding
the standard of review employed by the district court when
reviewing a report and recommendation to which no objections
has not objected to the report and recommendation.
Nevertheless, the court engages in a de novo review
to determine whether to adopt the magistrate judge's
Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) allows courts to dismiss an
action or claim if “the plaintiff fails to prosecute or
comply with these rules or a court order[.]”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). Hill failed to comply with the
court's orders when he did not retain substitute counsel
or file a notice that he will proceed pro se and
when he failed to show cause. Hill has also failed to
prosecute this action because he has not participated in this
litigation since August 22, 2018, which has prevented the
court from adjudicating the merits of this case. Therefore,
the court will grant Geico's motion and dismiss this
action with ...