Ruiz v. Nevada Department of Corrections et al

Filing 122

ORDER Granting 119 Motion to Extend Time. Motions due by 11/7/2022. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach on 9/23/2022. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JQC)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

***

4

JOHN MANUEL RUIZ,

5

2:16-cv-00931-APG-VCF

Plaintiff,

6

vs.

ORDER

7

NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, et al,

MOTION TO EXTEND TIME [ECF No. 119]

8

Defendants.

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Pro se plaintiff filed a motion to extend time, asking the court for an additional forty-five days to
file a dispositive motion. ECF No. 118. Dispositive motions were due September 1, 2022. ECF No. 113.
Defendants filed a notice of non-opposition, stating that they do not oppose allowing plaintiff to take an
additional forty-five days to file his dispositive motion. ECF No. 120. I grant the motion to extend time.
Given how long this case has been open, I warn plaintiff that I will not extend this deadline again absent
extraordinary circumstances.
Accordingly,
I ORDER that the plaintiff’s motion to extend time (ECF No. 119) is GRANTED.
I FURTHER ORDER that plaintiff has until Monday, November 7, 2022, to file his dispositive
motion.
NOTICE
Pursuant to Local Rules IB 3-1 and IB 3-2, a party may object to orders and reports and
recommendations issued by the magistrate judge. Objections must be in writing and filed with the Clerk
of the Court within fourteen days. LR IB 3-1, 3-2. The Supreme Court has held that the courts of appeal
may determine that an appeal has been waived due to the failure to file objections within the specified
1

1

time. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985). This circuit has also held that (1) failure to file

2

objections within the specified time and (2) failure to properly address and brief the objectionable issues

3

waives the right to appeal the District Court's order and/or appeal factual issues from the order of the

4

District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991); Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch.

5

Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Pursuant to LR IA 3-1, plaintiffs must immediately file written

6

notification with the court of any change of address. The notification must include proof of service upon

7

each opposing party’s attorney, or upon the opposing party if the party is unrepresented by counsel.

8

Failure to comply with this rule may result in dismissal of the action.

9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 23rd day of September 2022.
_________________________
CAM FERENBACH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2