Rivera v. Clark County, Nevada et al
Filing
23
ORDER Adopting 19 Report and Recommendation. This case is dismissed with prejudice. Case terminated. Signed by Judge Roger L. Hunt on 02/19/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AC)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
9
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
10
***
11
12
13
14
15
JUAN CARLOS RIVERA,
)
)
Plaintiff(s),
)
)
vs.
)
)
CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA, et al.,
)
)
Defendant(s).
)
_______________________________________)
Case No.: 2:11-cv-001-RLH-NJK
ORDER
16
17
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate
18
Judge (# 19, filed January 11, 2013), entered by the Honorable Nancy J. Koppe, regarding
19
Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s orders and second failure to appear at a scheduled
20
hearing. An objection was filed to Magistrate Judge Koppe’s Report and Recommendation of
21
United States Magistrate Judge in accordance with Local Rule IB 3-2 of the Rules of Practice of
22
the United States District Court for the District of Nevada (# 20, filed January 20, 2013), and the
23
matter was submitted for consideration.
24
25
Plaintiff’s failure to appear at the Show Cause Hearing on December 27, 2012
(#16) is the most recent iteration of Plaintiff’s noncompliance with the Court’s Orders, rules, and
26
AO 72
(Rev. 8/82)
1
1
procedures. Plaintiff originally applied to proceed in forma pauperis on January 3, 2011. On
2
February 1, 2011, the Court held a status hearing in this case and ordered Plaintiff,
3
Juan Carlos Rivera to file an Amended Complaint on or before March 30, 2011. More than a year
4
later, on April 18, 2012, Plaintiff, Juan Carlos Rivera, filed an Amended Complaint (#7). On
5
September 27, 2012, the Court entered an Order (#8) scheduling a status hearing for October 22,
6
2012, on the Amended Complaint (#7). The Order (#8) was served on Plaintiff by the United
7
States Postal Service by certified mail, return receipt requested. See Certified Mail Receipt (#9).
8
Plaintiff, Juan Carlos Rivera failed to appear for the hearing scheduled for October 22, 2012.
9
On October 24, 2012, the Court entered a Report and Recommendation for
10
dismissal with prejudice regarding the Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s order and
11
failure to appear at the scheduling hearing recommending. On October 28, 2012, in accordance
12
with Local Rule IB 3-2 of the Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for the District
13
of Nevada, the Plaintiff filed an Objection (#11) to the Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff’s
14
objection neglected to explain why the amended complaint was filed a year late and the only
15
excuse provided for failing to appear was that he never received the notice of the status hearing at
16
which he failed to appear. Apparently, Plaintiff had moved to a new address but failed to inform
17
the Court of a change of address as required by Local Rule LSR 2-2.
18
Based on this information, the Court determined to not adopt the Report and
19
Recommendation “[n]otwithstanding the fact that the failure of the Plaintiff was caused by his own
20
violations of the Local Rules and [was] not fully explained.” (# 13, entered November 16, 2012.)
21
Plaintiff’s address was updated in the Court’s records, the matter referred back to the Magistrate
22
Judge, and the show cause hearing was rescheduled for December 27, 2012. However, Plaintiff
23
again failed to appear. (# 16.) The Magistrate Judge then entered this Report and
24
Recommendation that the case be dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff filed an objection once again
25
omitting any justification for the untimely filing of his amended complaint and excusing his failure
26
to appear at the hearing by explaining that his residence had again changed, and he did not receive
AO 72
(Rev. 8/82)
2
1
notice of the hearing. A cursory review of Plaintiff’s opposition and the record shows that the
2
non-receipt was once again due to Plaintiff’s failure to update his address with the Court as
3
required by Local Rule LSR 2-2.
4
The Court has conducted a de novo review of this matter in accordance with 28
5
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C) and Local Rule IB 3-2 and determines that the Report and
6
Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Koppe should be adopted. Plaintiff has established a
7
history of noncompliance with the Court’s Orders, and any non-receipt the notice of hearing was
8
due to Plaintiff’s own failure to abide by the Court’s rules. Further, although the Plaintiff may
9
have been unfamiliar with LSR 2-2 initially, the previous Report and Recommendation together
10
with his opposition is sufficient to inform Plaintiff that he must keep a current address with the
11
Court so that the Court may communicate with him. The Court is conscious of the Plaintiff’s
12
pending in forma pauperis status as well as his asserted limited access to a computer. Neither of
13
these facts, however, prevent Plaintiff from updating his address with the Court or even staying
14
generally abreast about the happenings in his case. Most importantly, these facts do not excuse
15
repeatedly ignoring the Court’s orders and not complying with known Court rules. For these
16
reasons, the case is dismissed with prejudice.
17
IT IS SO ORDERED.
18
Dated: February 19, 2013.
19
20
____________________________________
ROGER L. HUNT
United States District Judge
21
22
23
24
25
26
AO 72
(Rev. 8/82)
3
]]>
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?
