ORDER

RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II, District Judge.

Before the Court are three Motions to Dismiss, one filed by Defendant Clark County and two filed by Defendant City of North Las Vegas. ECF Nos. 8, 10, 19. Also before the Court is a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the City of North Las Vegas. ECF No. 22.

Clark County's Motion to Dismiss was filed on November 16, 2015. ECF No. 8. The Certificate of Electronic Service states that an employee of the Clark County District Attorney emailed a copy of the motion to Plaintiff Frederick Lee Steese at fredericksteese@yahoo.com, the e-mail address Steese listed on his complaint. Id. at 6. The City of North Las Vegas's first Motion to Dismiss was filed on November 17, 2015. ECF No. 10. The Certificate of Service states that an employee of the North Las Vegas City Attorney's Office mailed the motion by first-class mail, postage prepaid, to Steese at the address he listed on his complaint. Id. at 13. The City of North Las Vegas filed a Renewed Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Summary Judgment on May 19, 2016; the Motion for Summary Judgment was refiled separately on May 24, 2016. ECF Nos. 19, 22. The Certificates of Service on these motions state that they were mailed to Steese by first-class mail, postage prepaid, at the address he listed on his complaint. Renewed Mot. Dismiss at 17, ECF No. 19; Mot. Summ. J. at 13, ECF No. 22. Steese has failed to file a response to any of these motions.

On December 31, 2015, a Scheduling Order was granted by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr. ECF No. 15. The Scheduling Order was mailed to Steese at the address he listed on his Complaint, but was returned to the Court as undeliverable on January 8, 2016. ECF No. 16. In addition, two separate Minute Orders of the Court issued pursuant to the requirements of Klingele v. Eikenberry and Rand v. Rowland were returned as undeliverable on June 9, 2016. ECF Nos. 25, 26. Steese has not provided any other mailing address or contact information to the Court. Based upon the Court's review of the record, the last time Steese contacted the Court or opposing counsel in connection with this case was on December 16, 2015, when Steese engaged in a Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) conference with opposing counsel. ECF No. 14 at 2.

Local Rule 7-2(d) provides that "[t]he failure of an opposing party to file points and authorities in response to any motion, except a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 or a motion for attorney's fees, constitutes a consent to the granting of the motion." In addition, Rule LSR 2-2 of the Local Rules of Special Proceedings and Appeals provides:

By failing to respond to any of Defendants' Motions to Dismiss and by failing to provide notification to the Court of his change in address, Steese has violated the Court's local rules and has provided grounds for dismissal of his claims. The Court has reviewed the record in this case and finds, given Steese's lack of response and the Court's inability to contact him, that maintaining this action would prejudice Defendants and would interfere with the Court's interest in efficiently managing its docket. The Court will therefore grant Defendants' Motions to Dismiss. In its discretion, however, the Court dismisses the case without prejudice.

For the reasons stated above,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' Motions to Dismiss (ECF No. 8, ECF No. 10, and ECF No. 19) are GRANTED. This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Clerk of Court is instructed to close this case.