Mackay v. Lane

District Court, D. Nevada·Decided February 3, 2025·No. 2:24-cv-01200·Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3

4 Deanna M. MacKay, Case No.: 2:24-cv-01200-JAD-NJK

5 Plaintiff 6 Order Sustaining Objection to v. Report & Recommendation and Giving the 7 Plaintiff until 2/24/25 to File Amended 8 Judge Robert W. Lane, et al., Complaint

9 Defendants [ECF Nos. 7, 8]

10 11 The court screened Deanna M. MacKay’s complaint and dismissed it with leave to amend 12 by January 10, 2025. MacKay was warned that her failure to file an amended complaint by that 13 deadline would result in this case being dismissed and closed. So when January 10th came and 14 went with no filing, the magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation to dismiss this 15 case.1 In a document that purports to be a request “for Second Amendment,” MacKay objects to 16 that dismissal recommendation, explaining that she had been unable to file an amended 17 complaint because she had been sick and because various other circumstances conspired against 18 her.2 I liberally construe that request as an objection to the report and recommendation and a 19 motion to extend the deadline to file the amended complaint. 20 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that MacKay’s objection [ECF No. 8] is SUSTAINED, 21 and the report and recommendation for dismissal [ECF No. 7] is REJECTED at this time to 22 give MacKay one more opportunity to file the second amended complaint. MacKay’s deadline 23 to file that complaint is extended to February 24, 2025. If she fails to file a proper, second 24 25

26 1 ECF No. 7. 27 2 ECF No. 8. 28 1 |}amended complaint by February 24, 2025, this case will be dismissed and closed without 2 || further prior notice. 3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to SEAL pages 7-21 of ECF No. 8 because they are medical records that MacKay attached to her objection. The 5 || personal and private nature of those documents constitutes compelling reasons under Kamakana 6 || v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006), that outweigh the 7 || traditional right of public access to court filings. 8 9 ___ Pe US. District|Judge J énnifer Dorsey 10 February 3, 2025 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

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

Mackay v. Lane, (D. Nev. 2025).

Mackay v. Lane (Mackay v. Lane) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu
447 F.3d 1172 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)