Posey v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA || Tayvion Posey, 2:23-cv-01936-GMN-MDC 4 Plaintiff(s), ; ORDER DENYING MOTION vs. || Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department., 7 Defendant(s).

8 Pending before the Court is a Motion for Status Check (ECF No. 41) by pro se plaintiff Tayvion || Posey. “The Court does not provide status checks for its cases and advises Plaintiff to not file such || motions.” Redman vy. Aranas, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99088, 2019 WL 2453656, at *1 (D. Nev. June 12, || 2019). “Motions such as these put stress on an already overburdened judicial system. The Court receives 12 numerous motions every day and will not provide status checks for its ongoing cases. The Court will || address all Parties’ contentions in due course.” /d.

15 ACCORDINGLY, 16 IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Status Check (ECF No. 41) is DENIED. . th 4 ay a 18 DATED this 10" day of December 2024. Za □□ Lif) wf Ix 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. if // \ ff if 20 Hon. Maximiliano D. Couvillier II 41 United States Magistrate Judge NOTICE 33 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).

3 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 6 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991); Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983).

7 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.