Bernard-Ex v. Molinar

Opinion

* * *

BERNARD-EX, ORDER

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 2:21-cv-00100-RFB-BNW

PUPO et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff, Case No.: 2:21-cv-00703-RFB-BNW v.

LAURA REHFELDT et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff, Case No.: 2:21-cv-00704-RFB-BNW v. DEANNA MOLINAR et al.,

BERNARD-EX,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 2:21-cv-00705-RFB-BNW

Defendants.

Plaintiff, Case No.: 2:21-cv-00706-RFB-BNW

v.

Defendants.

BERNARD-EX, Plaintiff, v. Case No.: 2:21-cv-00710-RFB-BNW AARON FORD, Defendants.

Plaintiff, Case No.: 2:21-cv-00716-RFB-BNW v.

Defendants.

BERNARD-EX, Plaintiff, v. Case No.: 2:21-cv-00718-RFB-BNW

STATE OF NEVADA, Defendants.

Plaintiff, Case No.: 2:21-cv-00843-RFB-BNW v.

LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT,

Defendants.

Before the Court for consideration is the Report and Recommendation of the Honorable Brenda Weksler, United States Magistrate Judge, entered July 16, 2021. ECF No. 126. A district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A party may file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Local Rule IB 3-2(a). When written objections have been filed the district court is required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Local Rule IB 3-2(b). Where a party fails to object, however, a district court is not required to conduct “any review,” de novo or otherwise, of the report and recommendations of a magistrate judge. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). Pursuant to Local Rule IB 3-2(a), objections were due by July 16, 2021. No timely objections have been filed. The Court has reviewed the record in this case and concurs with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations. In accordance with Magistrate Judge’s recommendation, Plaintiff is permitted to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff is advised that the amended complaint must contain all claims, defendants, and factual allegations that plaintiff wishes to pursue in this lawsuit. Plaintiff is further advised that he must specify which claims he is alleging against which defendants. Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure adopt a flexible pleading policy, plaintiff must give fair notice of each of the claims he is alleging against each defendant. He must allege facts showing how each defendant is involved and the approximate dates of their involvement. Put another way, plaintiff should tell the Court, in plain language, what each defendant did to him and when. “[L]egal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported with factual allegations.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). Additionally, plaintiff’s amended complaint must be short and plain. The simpler and more concise plaintiff’s complaint, the easier it is for the Court to understand it. The Federal Rules also require this. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, Plaintiff’s amended complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that [Plaintiff] is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “Each allegation must be simple, concise, and direct.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1). “A party must state its claims or defenses in numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). “[E]ach claim founded on a separate transaction or occurrence . . . must be stated in a separate count.” Id. / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / 1 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation [126] 1s ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall have until August 31, 2021, to file an amended complaint in the leading case (2:21-cv-00100-RFB-BNW). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all pending motions in the following cases are DENIED with leave to re-file—where appropriate—in the leading case: 2:21-cv-00703-RFB- BNW; 2:21-cv-00704-RFB-BNW; 2:21-cv-00705-RFB-BNW; 2:21-cv-00706-RFB-BNW; 2:21- cv-00710-RFB-BNW; 2:21-cv-00716-RFB-BNW; 2:21-cv-00718-RFB-BNW; 2:21-cv-00843- RFB-BNW. IT IS FURHTER ORDERED that the following cases be DISMISSED and closed: 2:21- cv-00703-RFB-BNW; 2:21-cv-00704-RFB-BNW; 2:21-cv-00705-RFB-BNW; 2:21-cv-00706- RFB-BNW; 2:21-cv-00710-RFB-BNW; 2:21-cv-00716-RFB-BNW; 2:21-cv-00718-RFB-BNW; 2:21-cv-00843-RFB-BNW. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all pending motions in the leading case (2:21-cv- 00100-RFB-BNW) are DENIED without prejudice and may be re-filed after Plaintiff files the amended complaint. The Court Clerk is directed to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff. DATED: August 3, 2021. > sk. Il UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

_5-