Case Information
*1 Case 2:16-cv-02273-JAD-NJK Document 5 Filed 12/14/16 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA
ALEXANDER GONZALAS, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case No. 2:16-cv-02273-JAD-NJK Plaintiff(s),
vs. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION GEORDAN LOGAN, et al.,
Defendant(s).
__________________________________________)
On September 27, 2016, Plaintiff filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis , as well as a complaint. Docket No. 1. On October 5, 2016, the Court denied Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis without prejudice because his financial certificate contained incorrect numbers, as compared to his inmate trust account statement. Docket No. 2. at 1. The Court ordered Plaintiff to file a renewed application to proceed in forma pauperis that corrected this deficiency, no later than November 4, 2016. Id. at 2. On October 27, 2016, Plaintiff filed a renewed application to proceed in forma pauperis . Docket No. 3. On October 31, 2016, the Court denied Plaintiff’s renewed application to proceed in forma pauperis without prejudice because it was incomplete and failed to correct the deficiency identified in the Court’s October 5, 2016 order. Docket No. 4 at 1. The Court ordered Plaintiff to file a renewed application to proceed in forma pauperis no later than November 30, 2016. Id. at 2. The Court noted that if Plaintiff failed to file a renewed application by the deadline, the Court would recommend dismissal of the instant case. Id. To date, no renewed application to proceed in forma pauperis has been filed. See Docket.
*2 Case 2:16-cv-02273-JAD-NJK Document 5 Filed 12/14/16 Page 2 of 2 Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that this case be dismissed without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f); see also LR IA 11-8(d).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 14, 2016
___________________________________ NANCY J. KOPPE United States Magistrate Judge NOTICE
Pursuant to Local Rule IB 3-2 any objection to this Report and Recommendation must be in writing and filed with the Clerk of the Court within 14 days of service of this document. The Supreme Court has held that the courts of appeal may determine that an appeal has been waived due to the failure to file objections within the specified time. Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985). This circuit has also held that (1) failure to file objections within the specified time and (2) failure to properly address and brief the objectionable issues waives the right to appeal the District Court’s order and/or appeal factual issues from the order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst , 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991); Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch. Dist. , 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 2
