Martinez v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department et al

Filing 13

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION that the Court allow this action to proceed on Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claim against Defendant Donovan only re ECF No. 11 Amended Complaint filed by Miguel A. Martinez. Objections to R&R due by 7/7/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 06/23/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

MIGUEL A. MARTINEZ,

13

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

14

On January 20, 2017, the Court issued a screening order dismissing with leave to amend

15

certain claims in Plaintiff’s amended complaint, and permitting Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claim

16

against Defendant Donovan to proceed. Docket No. 12. The Court allowed Plaintiff 30 days from

17

the date of its order to file a second amended complaint curing the deficiencies it identified in his

18

amended complaint. Id. at 4-5. The Court specifically stated that, if Plaintiff chose not to file a

19

second amended complaint, the undersigned would recommend that the action proceed only on

20

Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claim against Defendant Donovan. Id. at 5. Plaintiff has not filed a

21

second amended complaint. See Docket.

9

Plaintiff(s),

10

vs.

11

LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE
DEPARTMENT, et al.,

12
Defendant(s).

Case No. 2:15-cv-00883-MMD-NJK
REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION

22

Accordingly, pursuant to the screening order, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that the

23

Court allow this action to proceed on Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claim against Defendant

24

Donovan only.

25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26

DATED: June 23, 2017.

27
28

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

1

NOTICE

2

Pursuant to Local Rule IB 3-2, any objection to this Report and Recommendation must be

3

in writing and filed with the Clerk of the Court within fourteen (14) days. The Supreme Court has

4

held that the courts of appeal may determine that an appeal has been waived due to the failure to file

5

objections within the specified time. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985). This circuit has also

6

held that (1) failure to file objections within the specified time and (2) failure to properly address and

7

brief the objectionable issues waives the right to appeal the District Court’s order and/or appeal

8

factual issues from the order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir.

9

1991); Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983).

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

2