1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 * * *

7 BRENDAN JAMES NASBY, Case No. 3:20-cv-00231-RFB-CSD

8 Plaintiff, ORDER

9 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 For the reasons stated below, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motions without prejudice and 20 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.”

(b)(1). A party may file specific 25 written objections to the findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge.

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.”

(b)(1); see also Local 1] Rule IB 3—2(b). 2 In this case, Plaintiff filed an objection to Judge Denney’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 34) on July 14, 2022. ECF Nos. 35, 36. The next month, however, Plaintiff also filed a 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.,

(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 1s 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 I. CONCLUSION 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 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 34) is 18 | REJECTED as moot. 19 20 DATED: January 19, 2023 21 AS 22 RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28

-2-