Gomez v. State of Nevada Department of Business and Industrial Relations

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 *** GONZOLO GOMEZ, 7 2:21-cv-01184-GMN-VCF Plaintiff, vs. ORDER COMPLAINT (ECF No. 1-1) STATE OF NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, et al., 12 Defendants.

13 The Court previously denied pro se plaintiff Gonzolo Gomez’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis without prejudice (ECF No. 1), finding that his application was “incomplete because he left almost the entire application blank.” (ECF No. 3 at 2). The Court gave plaintiff 30 days to either file an updated IFP application or to alternatively pay the filing fee in full. (Id.) 17 Plaintiff has now paid the filing fee. (ECF No. 4). Plaintiff may now proceed with his case pro se, without prior screening, since he is not proceeding in forma pauperis and paid the filing fee.

19 Accordingly, 20 IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to file the Complaint (ECF No. 1-1).

21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to issue the summons.

22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff must file a notice with the Court stating that he has served the defendants within 20 days of service. Plaintiff must serve the defendants or file a motion for an extension of time to serve the defendants by Monday, November 22, 2021. Failure to do so could 1 in dismissal.

2 NOTICE 3 Pursuant to Local Rules IB 3-1 and IB 3-2, a party may object to orders and reports and || recommendations issued by the magistrate judge. Objections must be in writing and filed with the Clerk || of the Court within fourteen days. LR IB 3-1, 3-2. 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). Pursuant to LR IA 3-1, the plaintiff must immediately file || written notification with the court of any change of address. The notification must include proof of || service upon each opposing party’s attorney, or upon the opposing party if the party is unrepresented by || counsel. Failure to comply with this rule may result in dismissal of the action.

15 IT IS SO ORDERED.

16 DATED this 24th day of August 2021. ap Me CAM FERENBACH 18 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE