Bailey v. Harris et al

Filing 28

ORDER: Plaintiff Viana Bailey's objections 25 are OVERRULED; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Viana Bailey's Third Demand for Final Judgment 27 is DENIED. This case is closed. Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 7/27/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DC)

Download PDF
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 4 Viana B. Bailey, 5 Plaintiff 6 v. 7 2:15-cv-02279-JAD-GWF Order William Oscar Harris, et al., 8 [ECF No. 27] Defendants 9 Plaintiff Viana B. Bailey brought this action to compel an arbitration.1 When a filing by 10 11 the plaintiff suggested that this case no longer presented a live controversy,2 the court ordered the 12 parties to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for lack of an actual dispute.3 After 13 considering the parties’ responses,4 Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr. then recommended that I 14 dismiss this case.5 Objections to his R&R were due by June 14, 2017. On June 21, 2017, having 15 received no objection, I entered an order adopting the R&R and dismissing this case.6 The next 16 day, the court received Bailey’s belated objection and a new “3rd Demand for Final Judgment.”7 17 18 Bailey’s post-closure documents do not persuade me to reconsider my June 21, 2017, dismissal of this case. She still has not demonstrated that there remains any actual dispute for 19 20 21 1 ECF No. 1. 22 2 ECF No. 20. 23 3 ECF No. 17. 4 ECF Nos. 18, 20, 21. 5 ECF No. 22. 6 ECF No. 23. 7 ECF No. 25, 26, 27. 24 25 26 27 28 1 this court to resolve; in fact, she confirms that the controversies in this case have been “settled.”8 2 To the extent that she now claims that the court should take action based on a document entitled 3 “Notice of Formal Ratification of Express Contract Nunc Pro Tunc,” ECF No. 10-2, that 4 document was executed on behalf of the defendants by Kenneth Taylor, a non-attorney, whom 5 this court has repeatedly indicated may not act on behalf of the defendants in this action.9 And 6 her objection that the magistrate judge lacks the power to take action in this case is meritless. 7 See 28 U.S.C. § 636 et seq. 8 9 Accordingly, had I received Bailey’s objections in a timely fashion, they would not have changed my decision to adopt the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and dismiss this 10 case. Even if I liberally construe her recent filings as a request for reconsideration of my 11 dismissal order, I find no basis to do so. Accordingly, 12 13 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Viana Bailey’s objections [ECF No. 25] are OVERRULED; and 14 15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Viana Bailey’s Third Demand for Final Judgment [ECF No. 27] is DENIED. 16 This case is closed. 17 DATED: July 27, 2017 18 _______________________________ Jennifer A. Dorsey United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 8 25 9 26 27 28 ECF No. 25 at 1. See ECF No. 10-2; 16 (minutes of hearing at which Taylor was advised he cannot act on behalf of the defendants in court); 17 (order giving the defendants until 2/10/17 to retain counsel or file a notice that they will appear pro se); 22 (R&R, noting that the defendants have “failed to comply with this Court’s order” requiring them to retain counsel or file a notice with the court indicating that they are appearing pro se). 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?