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)

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