Rizzi v. Williams

D. Nevada

Rizzi v. Williams

DecidedSeptember 9, 2024

Docket2:23-cv-01721

StatusUnknown

This text of Rizzi v. Williams (Rizzi v. Williams) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nevada primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rizzi v. Williams, (D. Nev. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 * * * 5 Kevin Rizzi, Case No. 2:23-cv-01721-GMN-DJA 6 Plaintiff, 7 Report and Recommendation v. 8 Keller Williams, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 On July 23, 2024, the Court noted that Plaintiff had not filed proof of service as to any 12 Defendant and that Plaintiff’s proof of service was overdue. (ECF No. 18). The Court thus 13 ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the Court should not recommend dismissal of the action 14 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) and gave Plaintiff until August 22, 2024, to file a 15 response. To date, Plaintiff has not filed anything further in this action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 4(m)(“[i]f a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on 17 motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice 18 against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time.”). 19 20 Accordingly, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that this case be DISMISSED without 21 prejudice. The Clerk of Court is kindly directed to send this recommendation to Plaintiff. 22 23 NOTICE 24 Pursuant to Local Rule IB 3-2 any objection to this Report and Recommendation must be 25 in writing and filed with the Clerk of the Court within (14) days after service of this Notice. The 26 Supreme Court has held that the courts of appeal may determine that an appeal has been waived 27 due to the failure to file objections within the specified time. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 1 file objections within the specified time and (2) failure to properly address and brief the 2 objectionable issues waives the right to appeal the District Court’s order and/or appeal factual 3 issues from the order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991); 4 Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 5 6 DATED: September 10, 2024 7 DANIEL J. ALBREGTS 8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

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

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 * * * 5 Kevin Rizzi, Case No. 2:23-cv-01721-GMN-DJA 6 Plaintiff, 7 Report and Recommendation v. 8 Keller Williams, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 On July 23, 2024, the Court noted that Plaintiff had not filed proof of service as to any 12 Defendant and that Plaintiff’s proof of service was overdue. (ECF No. 18). The Court thus 13 ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the Court should not recommend dismissal of the action 14 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) and gave Plaintiff until August 22, 2024, to file a 15 response. To date, Plaintiff has not filed anything further in this action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 4(m)(“[i]f a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on 17 motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice 18 against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time.”). 19 20 Accordingly, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that this case be DISMISSED without 21 prejudice. The Clerk of Court is kindly directed to send this recommendation to Plaintiff. 22 23 NOTICE 24 Pursuant to Local Rule IB 3-2 any objection to this Report and Recommendation must be 25 in writing and filed with the Clerk of the Court within (14) days after service of this Notice. The 26 Supreme Court has held that the courts of appeal may determine that an appeal has been waived 27 due to the failure to file objections within the specified time. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 1 file objections within the specified time and (2) failure to properly address and brief the 2 objectionable issues waives the right to appeal the District Court’s order and/or appeal factual 3 issues from the order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991); 4 Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 5 6 DATED: September 10, 2024 7 DANIEL J. ALBREGTS 8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Rizzi v. Williams, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rizzi-v-williams-nvd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack