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)

Download PDF
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

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?