Mizell v. State Of Nevada et al
Filing
5
ORDER DISMISSING CASE. IT IS ORDERED that the 4 R&R is adopted and accepted. FURTH ORD that P's 1 motion to proceed ifp is DENIED. FURTH ORD that this action is dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Chief Judge Robert C. Jones on 12/7/2011. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - PM)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
7
8
CAROLL ARTHUR MIZELL,
9
3:10-CV-269-RCJ-VPC
Plaintiff,
ORDER
10
v.
11
STATE OF NEVADA, et al.,
12
Defendants.
___________________________________
13
14
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of U.S. Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke
15
(#4) entered on January 13, 2011, recommending the Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed in Forma
16
Pauperis (#1) and dismiss the action. No objection to the Report and Recommendation was filed.
17
The Court has conducted its de novo review in this case and has fully considered the pleadings
18
and memoranda of the parties and other relevant matters of record pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)
19
and Local Rule IB 3-2. Plaintiff failed to fully complete the application to proceed in forma pauperis
20
and failed to comply with the Magistrate Judge’s order. The Court accordingly determines that the
21
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (#4) entered on January 13, 2011, should be adopted
22
and accepted.
23
24
25
26
27
28
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (#4)
entered on January 13, 2011, is adopted and accepted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed in Forma Paueris (#1) is
DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is dismissed without prejudice.
1
DATED: this 22nd day of November, 2011.
this 7th day of December, 2011.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
_____________________________________
ROBERT C. JONES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT 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?