Rodriquez v. Carl Warren & Company et al

Filing 28

ORDER ADOPTING 26 Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff Jesus Rodriguez' Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice. Signed by Judge Philip M. Pro on 3/10/10. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ECS)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA -oOo) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) CARL WARREN & COMPANY, et al., ) ) ) Defendants. ) ) JESUS RODRIGUEZ, 2 :09-CV-01360-PMP-PAL ORDER Before the Court for consideration is Plaintiff Jesus Rodriguez' Complaint (Doc. #1), filed on July 28, 2009. On February 18, 2010, the Honorable Peggy A. Leen United States Magistrate Judge, entered a Report of Findings and Recommendation (Doc. #26) recommending that Plaintiff Rodriguez' Complaint (Doc. #1) should be dismissed. On November 3, 2009, the Court entered an Order (Doc. #19) requesting Plaintiff to either retain new counsel or file a statement he would proceed pro se before November 30, 2009. Plaintiff failed to comply. On December 14, 2009, the Court entered an Order to Show Cause (Doc. #23) requesting Plaintiff to show cause in writing by December 28, 2009, why sanctions should not be imposed for his failure to comply with the Court's Order (Doc. #19). Plaintiff failed to comply. /// 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 The Court has conducted a de novo review of the record in this case in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule IB 1-4 and determines that Magistrate Judge Leen's Report of Findings and Recommendation should be Affirmed. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Leen's Report of Findings and Recommendation (Doc. #26) are Affirmed and Plaintiff Jesus Rodriguez' Complaint (Doc. #1) is DISMISSED with prejudice. DATED: March 10, 2010. PHILIP M. PRO United States District Judge 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?