Willingham v. Howard

D. Nevada

Willingham v. Howard

DecidedJanuary 6, 2025

Docket2:24-cv-01982

StatusUnknown

This text of Willingham v. Howard (Willingham v. Howard) 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

Willingham v. Howard, (D. Nev. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 * * * 5 Tiffanie Willingham, Case No. 2:24-cv-01982-JAD-DJA 6 Plaintiff, 7 Report and Recommendation v. 8 Brian Howard dba The Tow Truck Company, 9 Defendant. 10 11 On October 31, 2024, the Court denied Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma 12 pauperis, and gave Plaintiff until December 2, 2024, to file an updated application. (ECF No. 3). 13 In doing so, the Court warned Plaintiff that “[f]ailure to timely comply with this order may result 14 in a recommendation to the district judge that this case be dismissed.” (Id.). To date, Plaintiff 15 has neither filed an updated application to proceed in forma pauperis nor filed anything further on 16 the docket. Accordingly, the Court recommends dismissal of this case without prejudice. A 17 dismissal without prejudice allows Plaintiff to refile a case with the Court, under a new case 18 number. 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: January 6, 2025 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 Tiffanie Willingham, Case No. 2:24-cv-01982-JAD-DJA 6 Plaintiff, 7 Report and Recommendation v. 8 Brian Howard dba The Tow Truck Company, 9 Defendant. 10 11 On October 31, 2024, the Court denied Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma 12 pauperis, and gave Plaintiff until December 2, 2024, to file an updated application. (ECF No. 3). 13 In doing so, the Court warned Plaintiff that “[f]ailure to timely comply with this order may result 14 in a recommendation to the district judge that this case be dismissed.” (Id.). To date, Plaintiff 15 has neither filed an updated application to proceed in forma pauperis nor filed anything further on 16 the docket. Accordingly, the Court recommends dismissal of this case without prejudice. A 17 dismissal without prejudice allows Plaintiff to refile a case with the Court, under a new case 18 number. 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: January 6, 2025 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)

Willingham v. Howard, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/willingham-v-howard-nvd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack