Orth v. Duffy

District Court, D. Nevada·Decided March 20, 2024·No. 2:21-cv-01988·Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Sean Rodney Orth, 4 2:21-cv-01988-GMN-MDC Plaintiff(s), 5 vs. Order 6 Phillip Duffy, et al., 7 Defendant(s). 8 The Office of the Attorney General (“OAG”) notified the Court that it would accept service on 9 behalf of Defendants Calvin Johnson and Julie Williams. ECF No. 60. The OAG did not accept service 10 on behalf of Dr. Bernales or Dr. Rivas but stated that they would file an acceptance of service once 11 permission was obtained, otherwise the OAG would submit, under seal, the last known addresses for Dr. 12 Bernales and Dr. Rivas. Id. To date, the OAG has not filed a Notice of Acceptance of Service, nor submitted 13 the last known addresses under seal. 14 Accordingly, 15 IT IS ORDERED that the OAG either file a Notice of Acceptance of Service OR file, under seal, 16 the last known addresses of defendants Dr. Bernales and Dr. Rivas by April 12, 2024. 17 NOTICE 18 Pursuant to Local Rules IB 3-1 and IB 3-2, a party may object to orders and reports and 19 recommendations issued by the magistrate judge. Objections must be in writing and filed with the Clerk 20 of the Court within fourteen days. LR IB 3-1, 3-2. The Supreme Court has held that the courts of appeal 21 may determine that an appeal has been waived due to the failure to file objections within the specified 22 time. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985). 23 This circuit has also held that (1) failure to file objections within the specified time and (2) failure 24 to properly address and brief the objectionable issues waives the right to appeal the District Court's order 25 1 || and/or appeal factual issues from the order of the District Court. Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 2 || (9th Cir. 1991); Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Pursuant to LR 3 ||IA 3-1, the plaintiff must immediately file written notification with the court of any change of address. 4 || The notification must include proof of service upon each opposing party’s attorney, or upon the opposing 5 || party if the party is unrepresented by counsel. Failure to comply with this rule may result in dismissal of 6 || the action. 7 8 DATED this 20" day of March 2024. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. A457 tb fA 10 YG {ff \

Maximiliano ofc Til United States Magistrate Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

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

Orth v. Duffy, (D. Nev. 2024).

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

Related

Thomas v. Arn
474 U.S. 140 (Supreme Court, 1986)