Albanese v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department

Filing 8

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION that the Court dismiss this case without prejudice. Objections to R&R due by 6/29/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 6/15/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

9

GRACE ALBANESE, et al.,

14

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

15

On May 8, 2017, Plaintiff filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis, along with a

16

complaint. Docket No. 1. On May 10, 2017, the Court granted Plaintiff’s application to proceed in

17

forma pauperis and screened Plaintiff’s complaint. Docket No. 3. The Court found that Plaintiff’s

18

complaint failed to satisfy Rule 8’s1 basic requirements and failed to demonstrate that the Las Vegas

19

Metropolitan Police Department (“LVMPD”) is a proper defendant in this action. See id. at 2-3. The

20

Court therefore dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend. Id. at 4.

10
Plaintiff(s),
11

vs.

12

LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE
DEPARTMENT,

13
Defendant(s).

Case No. 2:17-cv-01284-MMD-NJK
REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION

21

Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s amended complaint, which suffers from the same

22

defects as her initial complaint. Docket No. 7. The amended complaint, which contains one page

23

of allegations, fails to describe in sufficient detail the facts underlying this action, makes only

24

conclusory references to “due process and equal protection,” and relies on the conclusory assertion

25

that “[m]unicipal liability lies with the Las Vegas Police Department.” Id. Thus, Plaintiff’s second

26

amended complaint again fails to satisfy Rule 8’s basic requirements and again fails to demonstrate

27
28

1

Unless otherwise stated, references to “Rules” denote the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

1
2
3

that LVMPD is a proper defendant in this action.
Accordingly, the undersigned hereby RECOMMENDS that the Court dismiss this case
without prejudice.

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5

DATED: June 15, 2017

6
7

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

8
9
10

NOTICE
Pursuant to Local Rule IB 3-2 any objection to this Report and Recommendation

11

must be in writing and filed with the Clerk of the Court within 14 days of service of this

12

document. The Supreme Court has held that the courts of appeal may determine that an appeal

13

has been waived due to the failure to file objections within the specified time. Thomas v. Arn,

14

474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985). This Circuit has also held that (1) failure to file objections within the

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983).

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2