Nasby v. Nevada ex rel NDOC et al

Filing 65

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

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

BRENDAN JAMES NASBY,

8
9

Case No. 3:20-cv-00231-RFB-CSD

Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.

10

STATE OF NEVADA, et al.,

11

Defendants.

12
13

I.

INTRODUCTION

14

Before the Court for consideration is Plaintiff Brendan James Nasby’s Emergency

15

MOTION for Injunctive Relief (ECF No. 23) and MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order

16

(ECF No. 24), and the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 34) of the Honorable Judge Craig

17

S. Denney, United States Magistrate Judge. The Report and Recommendation recommends

18

denying Plaintiff’s motions for injunctive relief.

19
20

For the reasons stated below, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motions without prejudice and
rejects Judge Denney’s Report and Recommendation as moot.

21
22

II.

DISCUSSION

23

A district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

24

recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A party may file specific

25

written objections to the findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. §

26

636(b)(1); Local Rule IB 3–2(a). When written objections have been filed, the district court is

27

required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed

28

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

1

Rule IB 3–2(b).

2

In this case, Plaintiff filed an objection to Judge Denney’s Report and Recommendation

3

(ECF No. 34) on July 14, 2022. ECF Nos. 35, 36. The next month, however, Plaintiff also filed a

4

Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint. ECF No. 37. Judge Denney granted the Motion,

5

ECF No. 41, and the amended complaint was docketed, see ECF No. 56.

6

An amended pleading supersedes the original pleading. Hal Roach Studios v. Richard

7

Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir.1990). Accordingly, the Court lacks jurisdiction to

8

grant the injunctive relief requested by Plaintiff’s motions for injunctive relief, because those

9

injunctive relief motions were based on the original complaint which is no longer operative in this

10

action. As such, the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is moot, and is rejected as

11

such.

12
13

III.

14

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff Brendan James Nasby’s Emergency

15

Motion for Injunctive Relief (ECF No. 23) and Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (ECF

16

No. 24) are DENIED without prejudice.

17
18

CONCLUSION

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 34) is
REJECTED as moot.

19
20

DATED: January 19, 2023

21

__________________________________
RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-2-