United States District Court, D. Nevada
Moorish National Republic Federal Government; and Antonio El, Consulate General, Plaintiff
U.S. Department of State, et al., Defendants
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND
DISMISSING CASE [ECF NO. 5]
Jennifer A. Dorsey U.S. District Judge
October 11, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued a report and
recommendation that the district court dismiss this case
because the plaintiffs have failed to comply with the
Court's orders to file a new application to proceed
in forma pauperis and to update their mailing
address with the court. The deadline for objections to that
report and recommendation passed without any filing from the
plaintiffs, and “no 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 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 of the
plaintiff's claims. The 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,
that warning was given here. The fourth factor-the public
policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits-is
greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal.
with good cause appearing and no reason to delay, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation
[ECF No. 5] is ADOPTED, and this
case is DISMISSED for failure to file a notice of
changed address and new IFP application as directed by the
Court The Clerk of Court is directed to ENTER
JUDGMENT accordingly and CLOSE THIS CASE.
 ECF No. 5.
 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;
Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53.
 See Anderson v. Air West, 542
F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976).
Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262;
Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33; Henderson, 779