Toy v. South Point Hotel and Casino et al

Filing 5

ORDER re 4 Order on Report and Recommendation. Toy failed to respond and he therefore has not shown cause why his remaining claims should not be dismissed as barred by the statute of limitations. I therefore dismiss his remaining claims with prejudice. The clerk of court is directed to close this action. Signed by Judge Andrew P. Gordon on 4/13/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DKJ)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

***

4

JOSEPH T. TOY,

5
6
7
8

Case No. 2:14-CV-01723-APG-VCF
Plaintiff,
ORDER

v.
SOUTH POINT HOTEL AND CASINO, et
al.,

(Dkt. #4)

Defendants.

9
10
11

Pro se plaintiff Joseph Toy alleges that on October 14, 2012, employees of Defendant

12

South Point Hotel and Casino summoned the police and an ambulance to “forcibly remove” Toy

13

and his mother from the South Point premises. (Dkt. #3 at 3.) He brings claims on his own behalf

14

and on behalf of his mother under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged violations of their constitutional

15

rights. (Id. at 2.)

16

On October 21, 2014, Magistrate Judge Ferenbach entered a Report & Recommendation

17

(Dkt. #2) recommending I dismiss this case as barred by the statute of limitations. Judge

18

Ferenbach also recommended that even if the complaint should not be dismissed in its entirety,

19

Toy cannot assert his mother’s rights. Judge Ferenbach also recommended dismissal of

20

Defendant State of Nevada because a state cannot be sued under § 1983.

21

No objection was filed. I nevertheless conducted a de novo review of the issues set forth

22

in the Report & Recommendation. (Dkt. #4.) I dismissed Toy’s claims filed on his mother’s

23

behalf because Toy cannot assert claims based on alleged injuries to his mother. I dismissed

24

Toy’s claims against the State of Nevada because a state is not a “person” amenable to suit under

25

§ 1983. I also gave Toy until February 23, 2015 to show cause why his claims should not be

26

dismissed as barred by the statute of limitations. I warned him that failure to respond would

27

result in dismissal of his claims without further notice.

28

1

Toy did not respond and he therefore has not shown cause why his remaining claims

2

should not be dismissed as barred by the statute of limitations. I therefore dismiss his remaining

3

claims with prejudice. The clerk of court is directed to close this action.

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5

DATED this 13th day of April, 2015.

6
7
8

ANDREW P. GORDON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Page 2 of 2