Graham v. Eisenloffel et al
Filing
172
ORDER - It is so ordered that: 1. Plaintiff Sankona Graham's emergency motion to object, terminate, and/or limit deposition (ECF No. 170 ) is denied. 2. Plaintiff is CAUTIONED that failure to comply with this order or further allegations of misconduct may result in an order to show cause and possible sanctions. Signed by Magistrate Judge Maximiliano D. Couvillier, III on 3/26/2024. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - GA)
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
3
4
5
6
7
Sankona Graham,
Plaintiff(s),
vs.
Order denying plaintiff’s emergency motion
(ECF No. 170)
Theodore Eisenloffel, et al.,
Defendant(s).
8
9
2:21-cv-01674-RFB-MDC
The Court has reviewed plaintiff’s emergency motion (ECF No. 170) and denies his motion
10
because plaintiff does not present any reasonable grounds to prevent his deposition.
Plaintiff’s prior
11
deposition was terminated because defendant’s counsel felt threatened (ECF No. 154). Plaintiff’s prior
12
deposition conduct further resulted in the withdrawal of his pro-bono counsel (ECF No. 154). Plaintiff is
13
cautioned that further allegations of his misconduct may result in an order to show cause and possible
14
sanctions.
15
It is so ordered that:
16
1. Plaintiff Sankona Graham’s emergency motion to object, terminate, and/or limit deposition
17
18
19
(ECF No. 170) is denied.
2. Plaintiff is CAUTIONED that failure to comply with this order or further allegations of
misconduct may result in an order to show cause and possible sanctions.
20
21
NOTICE
22
Pursuant to Local Rules IB 3-1 and IB 3-2, a party may object to orders and reports and
23
recommendations issued by the magistrate judge. Objections must be in writing and filed with the Clerk
24
of the Court within fourteen days. LR IB 3-1, 3-2. The Supreme Court has held that the courts of appeal
25
may determine that an appeal has been waived due to the failure to file objections within the specified
1
2
time. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985). This circuit has also held that (1) failure to file objections
within the specified time and (2) failure to properly address and brief the objectionable issues waives the
3
right to appeal the District Court's order and/or appeal factual issues from the order of the District Court.
4
Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991); Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452,
5
454 (9th Cir. 1983). Pursuant to LR IA 3-1, the plaintiff must immediately file written notification with
6
the court of any change of address. The notification must include proof of service upon each opposing
7
party’s attorney, or upon the opposing party if the party is unrepresented by counsel. Failure to comply
8
with this order may result in dismissal of this case.
9
10
It is so ordered.
Dated this 26th day of March 2024.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
_________________________
Maximiliano D. Couvillier III
United States Magistrate Judge
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?