Entsminger v. Aranas et al.

Filing 242

ORDER - Plaintiff's Objection (ECF No. 235 ) is overruled. Defendants' Motion to Strike (ECF No. 225 ) is denied as moot. Signed by Chief Judge Miranda M. Du on 8/20/2020. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AB)

Download PDF
Case 3:16-cv-00555-MMD-WGC Document 242 Filed 08/20/20 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 Before the Court is Plaintiff Gregory West Entsminger’s objection (ECF No. 235) to 13 United States Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb’s order (“the Order”) denying Plaintiff’s 14 motion to authorize the United States Marshal Service (“USMS”) to locate unserved 15 defendants (ECF No. 226 (denying ECF No. 224)), and Defendants’ Motion to Strike 16 Objection to Report and Recommendation (“Defendants’ Motion”) (ECF No. 225). For the 17 following reasons, the Court overrules Plaintiff’s objection (ECF No. 235) and denies 18 Defendants’ Motion (ECF No. 225) as moot. 1 19 The Court finds that Plaintiff’s objection is untimely. Under LR IB 3-1, a party must 20 file their objection to a magistrate judge’s order within 14 days after service of that order. 21 The docket reflects that Plaintiff was electronically served a copy of the Order on July 13, 22 2020. Accordingly, Plaintiff had until July 27, 2020 to object. But Plaintiff filed his objection 23 on August 6, 2020. (ECF No. 235.) The Court therefore overrules Plaintiff’s objection as 24 untimely. 25 Defendants’ Motion requests that the Court strike Plaintiff’s response (ECF No. 26 214) supporting Judge Cobb’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (ECF No. 203). (ECF 27 28 1The Court has also reviewed Plaintiff’s response (ECF No. 226). Case 3:16-cv-00555-MMD-WGC Document 242 Filed 08/20/20 Page 2 of 2 1 No. 225 at 2.) Defendants contend that, rather than stating an objection to the R&R, 2 Plaintiff inaptly seeks an order directing the USMS and the Nevada Attorney General’s 3 Office to assist Plaintiff with effectuating service on certain unserved Defendants. (Id.) But 4 the Court already denied such requests as beyond the scope of a response to the R&R. 5 (ECF No. 217 at 2 n.1 (citing to LR IC 2-2(b)).) Accordingly, the Court will deny Defendants’ 6 Motion as moot. 7 The Court notes that the parties made several arguments and cited to several cases 8 not discussed above. The Court has reviewed these arguments and cases and determines 9 that they do not warrant discussion as they do not affect the outcome of the objection and 10 motion before the Court. 11 It is therefore ordered that Plaintiff’s objection (ECF No. 235) is overruled. 12 It is further ordered that Defendants’ Motion to Strike Objection to Report and 13 Recommendation (ECF No. 225) is denied as moot. 14 DATED THIS 20th day of August 2020. 15 16 17 MIRANDA M. DU CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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?