Nasby v. Nevada ex rel NDOC et al
ORDER - IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff Brendan James Nasby's Emergency Motion for Injunctive Relief (ECF No. 23 ) and Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No. 24 ) are DENIED without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 34 ) is REJECTED as moot. Signed by Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 1/19/2023. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - CJS)
Case 3:20-cv-00231-RFB-CSD Document 65 Filed 01/19/23 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
BRENDAN JAMES NASBY,
Case No. 3:20-cv-00231-RFB-CSD
STATE OF NEVADA, et al.,
Before the Court for consideration is Plaintiff Brendan James Nasby’s Emergency
MOTION for Injunctive Relief (ECF No. 23) and MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order
(ECF No. 24), and the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 34) of the Honorable Judge Craig
S. Denney, United States Magistrate Judge. The Report and Recommendation recommends
denying Plaintiff’s motions for injunctive relief.
For the reasons stated below, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motions without prejudice and
rejects Judge Denney’s Report and Recommendation as moot.
A district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A party may file specific
written objections to the findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1); Local Rule IB 3–2(a). When written objections have been filed, the district court is
required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed
findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Local
Case 3:20-cv-00231-RFB-CSD Document 65 Filed 01/19/23 Page 2 of 2
Rule IB 3–2(b).
In this case, Plaintiff filed an objection to Judge Denney’s Report and Recommendation
(ECF No. 34) on July 14, 2022. ECF Nos. 35, 36. The next month, however, Plaintiff also filed a
Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint. ECF No. 37. Judge Denney granted the Motion,
ECF No. 41, and the amended complaint was docketed, see ECF No. 56.
An amended pleading supersedes the original pleading. Hal Roach Studios v. Richard
Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir.1990). Accordingly, the Court lacks jurisdiction to
grant the injunctive relief requested by Plaintiff’s motions for injunctive relief, because those
injunctive relief motions were based on the original complaint which is no longer operative in this
action. As such, the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is moot, and is rejected as
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff Brendan James Nasby’s Emergency
Motion for Injunctive Relief (ECF No. 23) and Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (ECF
No. 24) are DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 34) is
REJECTED as moot.
DATED: January 19, 2023
RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II
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?