From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Davis v. Nevada

United States District Court, District of Nevada
Feb 10, 2023
3:22-cv-00388-MMD-CLB (D. Nev. Feb. 10, 2023)

Opinion

3:22-cv-00388-MMD-CLB

02-10-2023

HASAN MALIK DAVIS, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF NEVADA, Defendant.


ORDER

MIRANDA M. DU CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Pro se Plaintiff Hasan Malik Davis brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 6.) Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Carla L. Baldwin (ECF No. 11), recommending the Court dismiss this action without prejudice and deny Plaintiff's motion to suppress (ECF No. 9) as moot. Plaintiff had until January 31, 2023, to file an objection. (ECF No. 13.) To date, Plaintiff has not filed an objection to the R&R. For this reason, and as explained below, the Court adopts the R&R, and will dismiss this action without prejudice and deny Plaintiff's motion to suppress as moot.

Because there is no objection, the Court need not conduct de novo review, and is satisfied that Judge Baldwin did not clearly err. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1116 (9th Cir. 2003) (“De novo review of the magistrate judges' findings and recommendations is required if, but only if, one or both parties file objections to the findings and recommendations.”); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72, advisory committee note to 1983 amendment (providing that the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation”).

Here, Judge Baldwin recommends dismissing this action without prejudice because several factors weigh in favor of dismissal after Plaintiff's failure to comply with the Court's order. (ECF No. 11 at 2.) See also Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of L.A., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986) (listing five factors for determining whether to dismiss an action for failure to obey a court order, which are “(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”) (citations omitted); Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 133 (9th Cir. 1987) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with court order after applying the Thompson factors). Moreover, the Court had already warned Plaintiff that his failure to timely comply with the Court's order to either file an application to proceed in forma pauperis by a non-inmate or pay the full filing fee would result in dismissal of this action. (ECF Nos. 8, 11 at 2-3.) See also Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33 (recognizing that “warning a plaintiff that failure to obey a court order will result in dismissal can suffice” to meet the “consideration of alternatives” factor in Thompson) (citations omitted). The Court agrees with Judge Baldwin. Having reviewed the R&R and the record in this case, the Court will adopt the R&R in full.

It is therefore ordered that Judge Baldwin's Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 11) is accepted and adopted in full.

It is further ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice.

It is further ordered that Plaintiff's motion to suppress (ECF No. 9) is denied as moot.

It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court enter judgment accordingly and close this case.


Summaries of

Davis v. Nevada

United States District Court, District of Nevada
Feb 10, 2023
3:22-cv-00388-MMD-CLB (D. Nev. Feb. 10, 2023)
Case details for

Davis v. Nevada

Case Details

Full title:HASAN MALIK DAVIS, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF NEVADA, Defendant.

Court:United States District Court, District of Nevada

Date published: Feb 10, 2023

Citations

3:22-cv-00388-MMD-CLB (D. Nev. Feb. 10, 2023)