Yabut v. Las Vegas Metro Police Department

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3

4 Robbyjoe V Yabut, 5 Case No. 2:24-cv-01014-APG-MDC

6 Plaintiff(s), REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO vs. DISMISS CASE 7 Las Vegas Metro Police Department, 8 Defendant(s). 9

10 The Court previously granted pro se plaintiff Robbyjoe V Yabut’s application to proceed in 11 forma pauperis and after screening, dismissed his proposed complaint without prejudice with leave to 12 amend. ECF No. 9. The Court gave plaintiff thirty days to file an amended complaint. Id. Plaintiff did 13 not file an amended complaint in thirty days, but he did file a notice of chance of address. ECF No. 11. 14 Plaintiff received another notice of the Court’s screening order at the new law library email address after 15 he filed his notice. See docket entry at ECF No. 9 “(Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - 16 GA) Modified on 2/11/2025.” Out of an abundance of caution, the Court sua sponte extended the 17 deadline to file an amended complaint by another thirty days and directed the Clerk to resend a copy of 18 the Court’s earlier screening order to the plaintiff. ECF No. 12. In total now, over sixty days have passed 19 from the Court’s screening order and the plaintiff has now twice received notice of the screening order. 20 Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint pursuant to the Court’s screening order. 21 // 22 // 23 // 24 25 1 Plaintiff Yabut has apparently abandoned this case. For the reasons discussed in the Court’s 2 earlier screening order (ECF No. 9), plaintiff’s case should be dismissed. Plaintiff will not be prejudiced 3 because he has an opportunity to object to this report and recommendation. 4 ACCORDINGLY, 5 The Court RECOMMENDS that this action be DISMISSED and Judgment entered. 6 It is so recommended. 7 Dated April 15, 2025. 8

9 _________________________

10 Hon. Maximiliano D. Couvillier III United States Magistrate Judge 11 NOTICE 12 Pursuant to Local Rules IB 3-1 and IB 3-2, a party may object to orders and reports and 13 recommendations issued by the magistrate judge. Objections must be in writing and filed with the Clerk 14 of the Court within fourteen days. LR IB 3-1, 3-2. The Supreme Court has held that the courts of appeal 15 16 may determine that an appeal has been waived due to the failure to file objections within the specified 17 time. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985). This circuit has also held that (1) failure to file 18 objections within the specified time and (2) failure to properly address and brief the objectionable issues 19 waives the right to appeal the District Court's order and/or appeal factual issues from the order of the 20 District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991); Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch. 21 Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Pursuant to LR IA 3-1, the plaintiff must immediately file 22 written notification with the court of any change of address. The notification must include proof of 23 service upon each opposing party’s attorney, or upon the opposing party if the party is unrepresented by 24 counsel. Failure to comply with this rule may result in dismissal of the action. 25 2