Albanese v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department

Filing 50

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Recommending 49 Second Amended Complaint be dismissed without prejudice. Objections to R&R due by 11/6/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr on 10/23/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 GRACE ALBANESE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE ) DEPARTMENT and DOUG GILLESPIE, ) ) Defendant. ) __________________________________________) Case No. 2:16-cv-00532-RFB-GWF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 13 This matter comes before the Court on the screening of Plaintiff’s Second Amended 14 Complaint (ECF No. 49), filed on October 10, 2017. The Court granted Plaintiff in forma pauperis 15 status on October 3, 2016. See (ECF No. 13). 16 On October 2, 2017, the Court entered its screening order regarding Plaintiff’s Amended 17 Complaint. There, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant the Las Vegas 18 Metropolitan Police Department (“LVMPD”) because Plaintiff failed to show that LVMPD’s 19 alleged conduct was driven by a policy or custom implemented by LVMPD and that the policy or 20 custom was the driving force behind the alleged violations of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. 21 Order and Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 48), pg. 3. Plaintiff’s Second Amended 22 Complaint fails to address this issue. Rather, Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint seeks to 23 remove Defendant Gillespie “so that this case can proceed to a close that would benefit [her] 24 financially.” Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 49), pg. 2.1 Plaintiff also reiterates her 25 allegations that LVMPD conducted warrantless surveillance on her, which interfered with her 26 ability to live, work or go to school. Id. at pg. 4. Because Plaintiff failed to correct the deficiencies 27 noted in the Court’s screening order, and because it appears that Plaintiff cannot correct said 28 1 The Court recommended that Defendant Doug Gillespie be dismissed with prejudice in its original screening order based on the fact that he is not a person for § 1983 purposes. See ECF No. 48. 1 2 3 4 deficiencies, the Court will recommend that this case be dismissed. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 49) be dismissed without prejudice and that this case be closed. DATED this 23rd day of October, 2017. 5 6 7 ______________________________________ GEORGE FOLEY, JR. United States Magistrate Judge 8 NOTICE 9 Pursuant to Local Rule IB 3-2, any objection to this Finding and Recommendation must be 10 in writing and filed with the Clerk of the Court within fourteen (14) days. The Supreme Court has 11 held that the courts of appeal may determine that an appeal has been waived due to the failure to 12 file objections within the specified time. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985). This circuit 13 has also held that (1) failure to file objections within the specified time and (2) failure to properly 14 address and brief the objectionable issues waives the right to appeal the District Court’s order 15 and/or appeal factual issues from the order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 16 1157 (9th Cir. 1991); Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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?