United States District Court, D. Nevada
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND
DISMISSING CASE [ECF NO. 12]
JENNIFER A. DORSEY U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.
Woods brings this civil-rights action to redress events that
he claims occurred during his incarceration at the Clark
County Detention Center and to challenge law-enforcement
actions that led to his arrest. Woods's mail has been getting
returned to the Court, and he was ordered to update his
address by July 26, 2019, or face dismissal. Because Woods has
not updated his address, and his mail continues to be
returned, the magistrate judge recommends that I dismiss this
case without prejudice. The deadline to challenge that
recommendation passed without objection or any request to
extend the deadline to file one. “[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 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. 12] is ADOPTED, and this
case is DISMISSED for failure to file a notice of
changed address as directed by the court. The Clerk
of Court is directed to ENTER JUDGMENT accordingly and CLOSE
 See Amended Screening Order,
ECF No. 9.
 ECF No. 7.
 ECF No. 12.
 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;