Padilla v. State of Nevada

District Court, D. Nevada·Decided November 12, 2020·No. 2:20-cv-00066·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 *** 4

5 RAYMOND PADILLA, Case No. 2:20-cv-00066-KJD-VCF

6 Plaintiff, AMENDED ORDER vs. 7 STATE OF NEVADA, et al., 8 Defendant. 9

10 The Court’s previous order (ECF No. 13), which screened plaintiff’s amended complaint (ECF 11 No. 11), contained a typographical error which directed the Clerk to file the plaintiff’s original 12 complaint (ECF No. 1-1) on the docket (See ECF No. 13 at 9) instead of the plaintiff’s amended 13 complaint (ECF No. 11). The Court acknowledges that the typographical error caused the Clerk to 14 docket the wrong complaint (ECF No. 14). 15 ACCORDINGLY, 16 IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of Court STRIKE ECF No. 14 from the docket. 17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court file the amended complaint (ECF No. 11) 18 on the docket. 19 20 NOTICE 21 Pursuant to Local Rules IB 3-1 and IB 3-2, a party may object to orders and reports and 22 recommendations issued by the magistrate judge. Objections must be in writing and filed with the Clerk 23 of the Court within fourteen days. LR IB 3-1, 3-2. The Supreme Court has held that the courts of appeal 24 may determine that an appeal has been waived due to the failure to file objections within the specified 25 time. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985). This 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

5 waives the right to appeal the District Court's order and/or appeal factual issues from the order of the

3 District Court. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991); Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch. 4 || Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Pursuant to LR IA 3-1, plaintiffs must immediately file written 5 || notification with the court of any change of address. The notification must include proof of service upon 6 || each opposing party’s attorney, or upon the opposing party if the party is unrepresented by counsel. 7 || Failure to comply with this rule may result in dismissal of the action. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. ° DATED this 12th day of November 2020. a 10 Load eect. 11 CAM FERENBACH 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

Padilla v. State of Nevada, (D. Nev. 2020).

Padilla v. State of Nevada (Padilla v. State of Nevada) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

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