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)

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