Opinion
2:23-cv-00976-JAD-EJY
10-24-2023
Michael D. Woodfall, Plaintiff v. State of Nevada, et al., Defendant
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT & RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING ACTION [ECF NO. 12]
Jennifer A. Dorsey U.S. District Judge
On June 28, 2023, the court denied plaintiff Michael Woodfall's in forma pauperis application because he used the wrong form, and Woodfall was given a month to either file the correct form or pay the $402 filing fee. The copy of that order mailed to Woodfall was returned as undeliverable. So on July 20, 2023, the court issued an order instructing Woodfall to update his address. It, too, was returned. On August 28, 2023, the magistrate judge directed Woodfall to show cause on why the matter should not be dismissed for failing to comply with the June 28th and July 20th orders by September 22, 2023. That order was returned as undeliverable also.
ECF No. 3.
ECF No. 5; ECF No. 6.
ECF No. 7.
ECF No. 8; ECF No. 9.
ECF No. 10.
ECF No. 11.
When Woodfall did not update his address and filed nothing by that deadline, the magistrate judge entered a report and recommendation that this case be dismissed. Woodfall had 14 days to object, and he neither filed objections nor moved to extend the deadline to do so. “[N]o review is required of a magistrate judge's report and recommendation unless objections are filed.” Having reviewed the R&R, I find good cause to adopt it, and I do.
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. 2003).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the magistrate judge's report and recommendation [ECF No. 12] is ADOPTED in its entirety. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice, and the Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE THIS CASE.