Opinion
2:20-cv-00089-CDS-BNW
04-11-2023
Jeremy Bryson, Plaintiff v. Zuniga, et al., Defendants
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE, DENYING MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DENYING MOTION TO GRANT JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS, AND CLOSING CASE [ECF NOS. 47, 48, 53, 68]
Cristina D. Silva United States District Judge
This is a civil rights action brought by pro se plaintiff Jeremy Bryson. On March 23, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Brenda Weksler issued a report and recommendation that I dismiss this action for failing to comply with the court's prior order (ECF No. 66), issued February 22, 2023. R&R, ECF No. 68. She recommended dismissal of this case due to Bryson's failure to update his address with the court. Id. Under the local rules, Bryson had fourteen days to file any objections to the R&R. See LR IB 3-2(a) (stating that a party who objects to a report and recommendation from a magistrate judge must file a written objection supported by points and authorities within fourteen days of being served with the report and recommendation). Any objections to Magistrate Judge Weksler's R&R were thus due on April 6, 2022. Id. Bryson has failed to update his address or to file an objection to the R&R to meet that deadline. It is possible that he did not receive a copy of the magistrate judge's order because during the pendency of this action, Bryson's mail has been repeatedly returned undeliverable. See ECF Nos. 33, 35, 65, 67.
“[N]o review is required of a magistrate judge's report and recommendation unless objections are filed.” 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. 2003). While de novo review is not required because Bryson failed to file objections, I nevertheless conducted a de novo review of the issue set forth in the report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When reviewing the order of a magistrate judge, the order should only be set aside if the order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a); LR IB 3-1(a); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Laxalt v. McClatchy, 602 F.Supp. 214, 216 (D. Nev. 1985). A magistrate judge's order is “clearly erroneous” if the court has “a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948); Burdick v. Comm'r IRS, 979 F.2d 1369, 1370 (9th Cir. 1992). “An order is contrary to law when it fails to apply or misapplies relevant statutes, case law or rules of procedure.” UnitedHealth Grp., Inc. v. United Healthcare, Inc., 2014 WL 4635882, at *1 (D. Nev. Sept. 16, 2014). Failure to provide a current address is a violation of Local Rule IA 3-1. The rule requires that a pro se party file a written notification of any change of mailing address, email address, or telephone number with the court. LR IA 3-1. Failure to comply may result in the dismissal of the action, entry of default judgment, or other sanctions as deemed appropriate by the court. Id. A review of the docket shows that Bryson failed to update his address with the Clerk of Court before the March 22, 2023, deadline. Thus, I find that Magistrate Judge Weksler's R&R was not clearly erroneous or contrary to the law.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Weksler's Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 68] is ADOPTED in its entirety.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for summary judgment [ECF No. 47] is DENIED as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants' motion for summary judgment [ECF No. 48] is DENIED as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to grant judgment on the pleadings [ECF No. 53] is DENIED as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is dismissed without prejudice. If Bryson wants to pursue his claims, he must file a new case, and pay the filing fee or file an application to proceed in forma pauperis.
The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close the case.