Bonham v. Daniels

Opinion

*** BRYAN P. BONHAM, Case No. 2:21-cv-01566-JAD-VCF Plaintiff, ORDER vs. SECOND APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA CHARLES DANIELS, et al., PAUPERIS (EFC NO. 7) Defendants. Pro se plaintiff Bryan P. Bonham filed a second application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). ECF No. 7. Judge Dorsey already screened plaintiff’s complaint and granted his first IFP application. ECF No. 6. I find that plaintiff’s second IFP application is unnecessary and deny it as moot. ACCORDINGLY, I ORDER that plaintiff’s second IFP application (ECF No. 7) is DENIED moot. NOTICE Pursuant to Local Rules IB 3-1 and IB 3-2, a party may object to orders and reports and recommendations issued by the magistrate judge. Objections must be in writing and filed with the Clerk of the Court within fourteen days. LR IB 3-1, 3-2. The Supreme Court has held that the courts of appeal may determine that an appeal has been waived due to the failure to file objections within the specified time. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985). 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 Court's order and/or appeal factual issues from the order of the

District Court. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991); Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch.

Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Pursuant to LR IA 3-1, plaintiffs must immediately file written notification with the court of any change of address. The notification must include proof of service upon each opposing party’s attorney, or upon the opposing party if the party is unrepresented by counsel. Failure to comply with this rule may result in dismissal of the action. DATED this 7" day of February 2022. ale Low Eee. pape fn ~ CAM FERENBACH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE