O'Neal v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department

Opinion

3 BRYAN EDWARD O’NEAL and Case No.: 2:17-cv-02765-APG-EJY KATHLEEN ROBINSON, 4 Order Dismissing Plaintiff Bryan O’Neal Plaintiffs and Accepting Report and 5 Recommendation to Dismiss Plaintiff v. Kathleen Robinson’s Claims 6 LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE 7 DEPARTMENT, et al.,

8 Defendants

9 On November 17, 2020, the defendants filed notices suggesting the death of plaintiff 10 Bryan O’Neal. ECF Nos. 96, 97. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(a)(1), when “a party 11 dies and the claim is not extinguished, the court may order substitution of the proper party. A 12 motion for substitution may be made by any party or by the decedent’s successor or 13 representative. If the motion is not made within 90 days after service of a statement noting the 14 death, the action by or against the decedent must be dismissed.” I therefore set a deadline of 15 February 16, 2021 for a motion for substitution to be made or I would dismiss O’Neal’s claims in 16 this case. No motion to substitute has been filed. I therefore dismiss O’Neal’s claims with 17 prejudice. 18 On November 3, 2020, Magistrate Judge Youchah recommended that I dismiss plaintiff 19 Kathleen Robinson’s claims with prejudice because she did not demonstrate an intent to 20 participate in discovery in good faith and failed to respond to court orders. ECF No. 93. 21 Robinson did not file an objection. Thus, I am not obligated to conduct a de novo review of the 22 report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (requiring district courts to “make a de novo 23 determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings to which objection is 1}}made”); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (“the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise” (emphasis in original)). 4 I] THEREFORE ORDER that plaintiff Bryan Edward O’Neal’s claims in this case are 5] DISMISSED with prejudice. 6 I FURTHER ORDER that Magistrate Judge Youchah’s report and recommendation 7\| (ECF No. 93) is accepted, and plaintiff Kathleen Robinson’s claims in this case are 8]| DISMISSED with prejudice. 9 I FURTHER ORDER that defendants Clark County and Naphcare, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 69) is DENIED as moot. 11 I FURTHER ORDER the clerk of court to enter judgment in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiffs and to close this case. 13 DATED this 19th day of February, 2021. 14 (I 15 ANDREWP.GORDON. SOS 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17 18 19 20 21 22 23