Burton v. Spring Mountain Treatment Center

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA * * * Ariana Burton, Case No. 2:24-cv-00449-CDS-DJA Plaintiff, Report and Recommendation v. Spring Mountain Treatment Center, Defendant. On May 10, 2024, the Court denied Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and gave her until June 10, 2024, to file a renewed application. (ECF No. 6). When Plaintiff missed that deadline, the Court entered an order to show cause requiring Plaintiff to explain why the Court should not recommend dismissal of this action for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute it under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). (ECF No. 7). In that order, the Court explained that “failure to comply with this order may result in a recommendation of dismissal to the district judge.” (Id.). To date, Plaintiff has not filed anything further in this action and appears to have ceased prosecuting it. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Accordingly, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that this case be DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk of Court is kindly directed to send this recommendation to Plaintiff. /// /// Pursuant to Local Rule IB 3-2 any objection to this Report and Recommendation must be in writing and filed with the Clerk of the Court within (14) days after service of this Notice. 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), reh’g denied, 474 U.S. 1111 (1986). The Ninth 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. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991); Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983).

DATED: October 17, 2024

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE