ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

FERNANDO M. OLGUIN, District Judge.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 636, the Court has reviewed the Second Amended Complaint, all of the records herein and the attached Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge. Further, the Court has engaged in a de novo review of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which any objections have been made. The Court accepts and adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation.

IT IS ORDERED that Judgment shall be entered dismissing the action without prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk serve forthwith a copy of this Order, the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and the Judgment of this date on Plaintiff and counsel for Defendants.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRAT JUDGE

This Report and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable Fernando M. Olguin, United States District Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 636 and General Order 05-07 of the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

PROCEEDINGS

Plaintiff filed this action on July 7, 2016. Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint on June 23, 2017. Defendants filed a "Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint" on July 12, 2017.

By Minute Order filed July 20, 2017, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss within thirty (30) days of July 20, 2017. The Minute Order cautioned Plaintiff that: "[f]ailure timely to file opposition to the Motion may result in the dismissal of the action." Nevertheless, Plaintiff failed to file any opposition within the allotted time.

On August 29, 2017, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the action be dismissed without prejudice. See "Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge," filed August 29, 2017. On September 11, 2017, Plaintiff filed an "Objection, etc.," in which Plaintiff renewed his request for the appointment of counsel. By Minute Order filed September 11, 2017, the Magistrate Judge withdrew the prior Report and Recommendation, denied Plaintiff's renewed request for the appointment of counsel and extended to October 2, 2017, the time within which Plaintiff could file opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Nevertheless, Plaintiff again failed to file any opposition within the allotted time.

DISCUSSION

The action should be dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff twice has failed timely to file opposition to a potentially dispositive motion, despite a Court order that he do so. The Court has inherent power to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases by dismissing actions for failure to prosecute and for failure to obey Court orders. Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30 (1962); Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642-43 (9th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 909 (2003); Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 838 (1995); see also L.R. 7-12. The Court has considered the factors recited in Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-62 (9th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 915 (1992) and has concluded that dismissal without prejudice is appropriate. In particular, any less drastic alternative would not be effective under the circumstances of this case.

RECOMMENDATION

For all the foregoing reasons, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Court issue an Order: (1) accepting and adopting this Report and Recommendation; and (2) directing that Judgment be entered dismissing the action without prejudice.

NOTICE

Reports and Recommendations are not appealable to the Court of Appeals, but may be subject to the right of any party to file objections as provided in the Local Rules Governing the Duties of Magistrate Judges and review by the District Judge whose initials appear in the docket number. No notice of appeal pursuant to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure should be filed until entry of the judgment of the District Court.