Rivera v. Clark County, Nevada et al

Filing 13

ORDER that 10 Report and Recommendation should NOT be accepted and adopted. The Court refers the matter back to the Magistrate Judge for a resetting of the status hearing to provide the Plaintiff the opportunity to show cause why his case should not be dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Judge Roger L. Hunt on 11/16/2012. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AC)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7

***

8
9
10
11
12

JUAN CARLOS RIVERA,

)
)
Plaintiff(s),
)
)
vs.
)
)
CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA, et al.,
)
)
Defendant(s).
)
____________________________________)

2:11-cv-001-RLH-RJJ
ORDER

13
14

Before this Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate

15

Judge (#10, filed October 24, 2012), entered by the Honorable Robert J. Johnston, regarding Plain-

16

tiff’s failure to comply with this Court’s orders and failure to appear at a scheduled hearing. An

17

objection was filed to Magistrate Judge Johnston’s Report and Recommendation of United States

18

Magistrate Judge in accordance with Local Rule IB 3-2 of the Rules of Practice of the United States

19

District Court for the District of Nevada (#11, filed October 29, 2012), and the matter was submitted

20

for consideration.

21

Plaintiff’s objection neglects to explain why the amended complaint was filed a year

22

late. The only excuse provided is that he never received the notice of the status hearing at which he

23

failed to appear. A cursory review of the reason for his not receiving the notice shows that the

24

Plaintiff Rivera had failed to inform the Court of a change of address as required by Local Rule LSR

25

2-2, which states as follows:

26

///
1

1
2

The plaintiff shall immediately file with the Court written notification of any change of
address. The notification must include proof of service upon each opposing party or
the party’s attorney. Faire to comply with this Rule may result in dismissal of the
action with prejudice.

3
Only now does he advise the Court that his address has changed.
4
The Court has conducted a de novo review of this matter in accordance with 28 U.S.C.
5
§636(b)(1)(B) and (C) and Local Rule IB 3-2 and determines that the Report and Recommendation of
6
Magistrate Judge Johnston should NOT be accepted and adopted. Notwithstanding the fact that the
7
failure of the Plaintiff was caused by his own violations of the Local Rules and is not fully explained,
8
the Court will refer the matter back to the Magistrate Judge for a resetting of the status hearing to
9
provide the Plaintiff the opportunity to show cause why his case should not be dismissed with
10
prejudice.
11
IT IS SO ORDERED.
12
Dated: November 16, 2012.
13
14
_________________________________
ROGER L. HUNT
U.S. District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2