Bey v. Nevada Power Company

CourtDistrict Court, D. Nevada
DecidedApril 25, 2023
Docket2:22-cv-01661
StatusUnknown

This text of Bey v. Nevada Power Company (Bey v. Nevada Power Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nevada primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bey v. Nevada Power Company, (D. Nev. 2023).

Opinion

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA *** 5 Arah Muaba Bey, 6 Case No. 2:22-cv-01661-CDS-VCF Plaintiff, 7 vs. Order to Administratively Close Case 8 Nevada Power Company, et al.,

9 Defendants.

10 Judge Silva ordered plaintiff to either file an in forma pauperis application on the Court’s 11 approved form or pay the filing fee by November 10, 2022. ECF No. 7. Plaintiff appealed Judge Silva’s 12 order, and I ordered that plaintiff could refile his IFP application, if appropriate, within thirty days after 13 14 his appeal to the Ninth Circuit is complete. ECF No. 12. On March 1, 2023, the Ninth Circuit dismissed 15 the appeal. ECF No. 13. Plaintiff has not filed an IFP application and the thirty day deadline to do so has 16 passed. Since plaintiff has not commenced this action, I order that this case be administratively closed. 17 ACCORDINGLY, 18 I ORDER that the Clerk of Court is directed to administratively CLOSE this case. 19 NOTICE 20 Pursuant to Local Rules IB 3-1 and IB 3-2, a party may object to orders and reports and 21 recommendations issued by the magistrate judge. Objections must be in writing and filed with the Clerk 22 of the Court within fourteen days. LR IB 3-1, 3-2. The Supreme Court has held that the courts of appeal 23 may determine that an appeal has been waived due to the failure to file objections within the specified 24 time. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985). 25 This circuit has also held that (1) failure to file objections within the specified time and (2) failure to properly address and brief the objectionable issues waives the right to appeal the District

5 Court's order and/or appeal factual issues from the order of the District Court. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d

3 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991); Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 4 || Pursuant to LR JA 3-1, the plaintiff must immediately file written notification with the court of any 5 || change of address. The notification must include proof of service upon each opposing party’s attorney, 6 || or upon the opposing party if the party is unrepresented by counsel. Failure to comply with this rule may 7 || result in dismissal of the action. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. ° DATED this 25th day of April 2023. 10 Loew erect. 11 CAM FERENBACH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Thomas v. Arn
474 U.S. 140 (Supreme Court, 1986)
Evelyn Dejesus v. Banco Popular De Puerto Rico
951 F.2d 3 (First Circuit, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Bey v. Nevada Power Company, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bey-v-nevada-power-company-nvd-2023.