Lacambacal v. Vasquez

Opinion

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 * * * 5 Lloyd Lacambacal, Case No. 2:24-cv-01759-GMN-DJA 6 Plaintiff, 7 Report and Recommendation v. 8 Desteney Vasquez, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 On September 30, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma 12 pauperis, dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint, and gave Plaintiff until October 30, 2024, to file an 13 amended complaint. (ECF No. 4). In doing so, the Court warned Plaintiff that “[f]ailure to 14 comply with this order will result in the recommended dismissal of this case.” (Id. at 4). To date, 15 Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint. Accordingly, the Court recommends dismissal of 16 this case without prejudice. A dismissal without prejudice allows Plaintiff to refile a case with 17 the Court, under a new case number. 18 19 Accordingly, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that this case be DISMISSED without 20 prejudice. The Clerk of Court is kindly directed to send this recommendation to Plaintiff. 21 22 NOTICE 23 Pursuant to Local Rule IB 3-2 any objection to this Report and Recommendation must be 24 in writing and filed with the Clerk of the Court within (14) days after service of this Notice. The 25 Supreme Court has held that the courts of appeal may determine that an appeal has been waived 26 due to the failure to file objections within the specified time. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 27 (1985), reh’g denied, 474 U.S. 1111 (1986). The Ninth Circuit has also held that (1) failure to 1 objectionable issues waives the right to appeal the District Court’s order and/or appeal factual 2 issues from the order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991); 3 Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 4 5 DATED: January 6, 2025 6 DANIEL J. ALBREGTS 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27