Abdul Aziz v. Eldorado Resorts LLC et al

Filing 38

ORDER granting with prejudice Defendants' 22 and 23 Motions to Dismiss; directing Clerk to close the case. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 4/28/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5
6

ALI AMIR ABDUL-AZIZ,

7
8
9
10

Plaintiff,

3:14-cv-00457-RCJ-VPC

vs.

ORDER

ELDORADO RESORTS, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.

11
12

This case arises from Defendants’ alleged discrimination and unconstitutional treatment

13

of Plaintiff at the Eldorado Resort and Casino in Reno, Nevada on September 16, 2012. Pending

14

before the Court are Motions to Dismiss filed by Defendant Eldorado Resorts LLC (ECF No. 22)

15

as well as Defendants Kelle Harter and the Reno Police Department (ECF No. 23).

16

On February 6, 2014, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a motion to withdraw as attorney, which

17

the Magistrate Judge granted. (ECF No. 31). Plaintiff then requested that the trial date set in this

18

case be continued in order to give him time to retain substitute counsel. In an Order dated

19

February 24, 2015, the Court denied Plaintiff’s request, finding that the currently scheduled trial

20

date of July 27, 2015 afforded Plaintiff sufficient time to find a new attorney. (See Feb. 24, 2015

21

Order, ECF No. 35). The Court further ordered Plaintiff to respond to Defendants’ Motions to

22

Dismiss within thirty days. The Order was entered on the docket on March 12, 2015. (ECF No.

23

35). Accordingly, Plaintiff had until April 13, 2015 to respond to the pending Motions, which he

24
1

1

did not do. Defendants now request that the Motions be granted for Plaintiff’s failure to respond.

2

(ECF Nos. 36, 37).

3

Local Rule 7-2(d) states that “[t]he failure of an opposing party to file points and

4

authorities in response to any motion shall constitute a consent to the granting of the motion.”

5

The Motions were filed on January 30, 2015 and February 2, 2015, meaning that nearly three

6

months have passed with no response from Plaintiff notwithstanding the extended deadline

7

granted by the Court in its previous Order. Therefore, the Court finds that the Motions to

8

Dismiss should be granted and Plaintiff’s case dismissed. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54

9

(9th Cir. 1995) (holding that “pro se litigants are bound by the rules of procedure”).

10
11
12
13

CONCLUSION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss (ECF Nos. 22, 23) are
GRANTED with prejudice. The Clerk is ordered to close the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15

April 28, 2015
Dated: _______________________

16
17

_____________________________________
ROBERT C. JONES
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2