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)

Download PDF
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?