Allison v. TSI Security Co

District Court, D. Nevada

Allison v. TSI Security Co

Trial Court Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 *** RONALD ALLISON, 4 Plaintiff, 5 2:21-cv-00150-GMN-VCF v. ORDER 6 TSI SECURITY CO, et al., 7 Defendants. 8 Before the Court is Ronold Allison v. TSI Security Co, et al., case number 2:21-cv-150-GMN- 9 VCF. 10 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 3 governs commencing an action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 3. “A civil 11 action is commenced by filing a complaint with the court.” Id. A complaint must contain the following: 12 (1) a statement of the grounds for jurisdiction, (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing why 13 the Plaintiff is entitled to relief, and (3) a demand for relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). 14 Under

28 U.S.C. § 1914

(a), a filing fee is required to commence a civil action in federal court. 15 Plaintiff was ordered to pay the filing fee or file an application to proceed in forma pauperis by 16 December 15, 2021. (ECF No. 4). 17 To date, Plaintiff has not complied with Rule 3. No complaint commencing this action has been 18 filed. The filing fee has not been paid. 19 Accordingly, 20 The Clerk of Court is directed to administratively close this case. 21 NOTICE 22 Pursuant to Local Rules IB 3-1 and IB 3-2, a party may object to orders and reports and 23 24 recommendations issued by the magistrate judge. Objections must be in writing and filed with the Clerk 25 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

5 time. Thomas v. Arn,

474 U.S. 140, 142

(1985). This circuit has also held that (1) failure to file objections 3 || Within the specified time and (2) failure to properly address and brief the objectionable issues waives the 4 || right to appeal the District Court's order and/or appeal factual issues from the order of the District Court. 5 || Martinez v. Ylst,

951 F.2d 1153, 1157

(9th Cir. 1991); Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch. Dist.,

708 F.2d 452

, 6 || 454 (9th Cir. 1983).

. DATED this 15th day of February, 2022. Load ecto CAM FERENBACH ? UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Reference

Status
Unknown