Entsminger v. Aranas et al.

Filing 190

ORDER that Plaintiff's objection (ECF No. 178 ) is overruled; Plaintiff's motion to file supplement (ECF No. 181 ) is denied as moot; Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a reply (ECF No. 189 ) is denied as moot. Signed by Chief Judge Miranda M. Du on 4/22/2020. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LW)

Download PDF
Case 3:16-cv-00555-MMD-WGC Document 190 Filed 04/22/20 Page 1 of 2 1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 *** 6 GREGORY WEST ENTSMINGER, Case No. 3:16-cv-00555-MMD-WGC ORDER 7 Plaintiff, 8 9 v. ROMEO ARANAS, et al., Defendants. 10 11 12 This is a civil rights case involving Plaintiff Gregory West Entsminger, who is in 13 custody at the Northern Nevada Correctional Center. Before the Court is Plaintiff’s 14 objection (ECF No. 178) to United States Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb’s orders 15 denying Plaintiff’s motion to compel (“MTC”) (ECF No. 143 (denying ECF No. 126)) and 16 motion for joinder of real party in interest (“MFJ”) (ECF No. 161 (denying ECF No. 123)). 17 Additionally, Plaintiff has filed a motion to supplement his objection (ECF No. 181) and 18 motion for leave to file a reply to Defendant’s opposition (ECF No. 189). 1 For the following 19 reasons, the Court overrules Plaintiff’s objection (ECF No. 178) and denies his remaining 20 motions (ECF Nos. 181, 189) as moot. 2 21 The Court finds that Plaintiff’s objection is untimely. Under LR IB 3-1, a party must 22 file their objection to a magistrate judge’s order within 14 days after service of that order. 23 The docket reflects that Plaintiff was electronically served a copy of ECF No. 143 on 24 January 31, 2020, and a copy of ECF No. 161 on February 28, 2020. Accordingly, Plaintiff 25 26 27 28 1Although the title of Plaintiff’s objection only refers to ECF No. 161, Plaintiff also objects to ECF No. 143, which the Court addresses. (See ECF No. 178 at 1, 11.) 2The Court has also reviewed Defendants’ response (ECF No. 187). Case 3:16-cv-00555-MMD-WGC Document 190 Filed 04/22/20 Page 2 of 2 1 had until February 14, 2020 to object to ECF No. 143, and March 13, 2020 to object to 2 ECF No. 161. But Plaintiff filed his objection on April 1, 2020. (ECF No. 178.) The Court 3 therefore overrules Plaintiff’s objection as untimely. 4 The Court notes that the parties made several arguments and cited to several cases 5 not discussed above. The Court has reviewed these arguments and cases and determines 6 that they do not warrant discussion as they do not affect the outcome of the objection or 7 motions before the Court. 8 It is therefore ordered that Plaintiff’s objection (ECF No. 178) is overruled. 9 It is further ordered that Plaintiff’s motion to file supplement (ECF No. 181) is denied 10 11 12 13 as moot. It is further ordered that Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a reply (ECF No. 189) is denied as moot. DATED THIS 22nd day of April 2020. 14 15 16 MIRANDA M. DU CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 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?