Ruben v. Las Vegas NV city govt et al

Filing 10

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 8 Magistrate Judge Ferenbach's report andrecommendation is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED. This case is DISMISSED with prejudice. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE THIS CASE. Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 1/4/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
4

Terence E. Ruben,

5

2:17-cv-01003-JAD-VCF

Plaintiff

6

v.

Order Adopting Report and
Recommendation and Dismissing Case
With Prejudice

7

City of Las Vegas, et al.,

[ECF No. 8]

8

Defendants

9
10

Pro se plaintiff Terence E. Ruben brings this civil-rights case against the City of Las

11

Vegas and Texas City, alleging multiple instances in which police officers violated his

12

constitutional rights.1 On May 10, 2017, Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach screened Ruben’s

13

original complaint and concluded that all of his claims are time-barred by the applicable statutes

14

of limitations.2

15

Ruben amended his complaint, realleging the time-barred claims, including new claims

16

that his constitutional rights were violated because he was incarcerated after he turned himself in

17

for warrants for his arrest, and requesting $10 million in damages.3 Judge Ferenbach told Ruben

18

once again that several of his claims were time-barred and advised him that the new claims did

19

not contain sufficient factual allegations to determine jurisdiction.4 Ruben was cautioned that, if

20

the new claims were for incarcerations in Texas, the District of Nevada would likely not have

21
22
23
24
1

ECF Nos. 1-1, 4, 5.

2

ECF No. 3.

3

ECF No. 5.

4

ECF No. 6 at 2.

25
26
27
28

1

jurisdiction to enter any judgment against the government of Texas City.5 So Judge Ferenbach

2

gave Ruben one more chance to amend his complaint by December 15, 2017, and warned him

3

that failure to timely file a second-amended complaint would result in his recommendation that

4

this case be dismissed with prejudice.6

5

The deadline to file a second-amended complaint has now passed, and Ruben has failed

6

to do so. True to his word, Magistrate Judge Ferenbach recommends that I dismiss this case.

7

The report and recommendation was issued on December 18, 2017, making January 1, 2018, the

8

deadline to file objections. That deadline, too, has passed, and Ruben has not objected. “[N]o

9

review is required of a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation unless objections are

10

filed.”7 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Ferenbach’s report and

11

recommendation [ECF No. 8] is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED. This case is DISMISSED

12

with prejudice. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE THIS CASE.

13

DATED: January 4, 2018.

14

_______________________________
________________________
_ __ _________ _
__
____
U.S. District Judge Jennifer A. D
S. District Judge Jennifer A Dorsey
ic
ic dg enni r

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

5

25

Id. Ruben was also advised to correct his mailing address that is on file with the court because
previous correspondence was returned as undeliverable.

26

6

27
28

Id.

7

Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474
U.S. 140, 150 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003).
2