Thomas v. Burchowitz

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 * * *

4 CALLANDRA THOMAS, Case No. 2:25-cv-00999-JAD-EJY

5 Plaintiff, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 6 v.

7 DAVID BURCHOWITZ, et al.,

8 Defendants.

9 10 This action was initiated on June 26, 2025 when Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, submitted an 11 Application to Proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) together with a Complaint. ECF Nos. 1, 1-1. On 12 June 10, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff’s IFP request and dismissed her Complaint without 13 prejudice but with leave to amend no later than July 7, 2025. ECF No. 3. The Court explained to 14 Plaintiff that failure to comply with the Order would result in a recommendation to dismiss this 15 action in its entirety. Id. As of the date of this Recommendation, Plaintiff has not complied with 16 the Court’s Order; nor has she otherwise communicated with the Court. 17 Accordingly, and based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this matter 18 be dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with the Court’s Order. 19 DATED this 10th day of July, 2025. 20 21

22 ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 NOTICE 25 Under Local Rule IB 3-2, any objection to this Report and Recommendation must be in 26 writing and filed with the Clerk of the Court within fourteen (14) days. The Supreme Court holds 27 the courts of appeal may determine that an appeal has been waived due to the failure to file objections 1 that (1) failure to file objections within the specified time and (2) failure to properly address and 2 brief the objectionable issues waives the right to appeal the District Court’s order and/or appeal 3 factual issues from the order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 4 1991); Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27