United States District Court, D. Nevada
Jaime R. Sanchez, Plaintiff
Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, et al., Defendants
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND
DISMISSING CASE [ECF NO. 13]
Jennifer A. Dorsey U.S. District Judge.
Jaime R. Sanchez's failure to file an amended complaint
by the deadline set by the court prompted Magistrate Judge
Brenda Weksler to recommend that I dismiss this action
without prejudice for failure to follow a court
order. The deadline for objections to that
recommendation was June 11, 2019, and no party has filed an
objection to it or moved to extend the deadline to do so.
“[N]o review is required of a magistrate judge's
report and recommendation unless objections are
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 with
prejudice 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 for lack of prosecution, failure to obey a court
order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must
consider several factors: (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
that the first two factors-the public's interest in
expeditiously resolving the litigation and the court's
interest in managing the docket-weigh in favor of dismissing
this case. The risk-of-prejudice factor also weighs in favor
of dismissal because a presumption of injury arises from the
occurrence of unreasonable delay in taking an action ordered
by the court. The fourth factor is greatly outweighed by
the factors in favor of dismissal, and a court's warning
to a party that his failure to obey the court's order
will result in dismissal satisfies the
consideration-of-alternatives requirement. Sanchez was
warned by two orders that his case would be dismissed without
prejudice if he failed to timely file an amended complaint,
he had adequate warning of this consequence. The factors thus
weigh heavily in favor of dismissing this case without
prejudice for failure to timely amend.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the magistrate judge's report
and recommendation [ECF No. 11] is ADOPTED
in full, and this action is DISMISSED
without prejudice based on Sanchez's failure to file an
amended complaint as ordered by the court;
FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to ENTER
JUDGMENT accordingly and CLOSE THIS CASE.
 ECF No. 11.
 ECF No. 13. The copy of the report and
recommendation mailed to Sanchez was returned to sender with
no new address. ECF No. 14.
 Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263
F.Supp.2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003); see also Thomas v.
Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985); United States v.
Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir.
 Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of
Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986).
 See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d
52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with
local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258,
1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with
an order requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v.
King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440- 41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal
for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se
plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); 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 for lack of prosecution and failure to
comply with local rules).
Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831;
Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833
F.2d at 130; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61;