1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Kevin Newhouse, 2:23-cv-01833-APG-MDC

4 Plaintiff(s), ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DIRECT 5 vs. SERVICE (ECF NO. 22) 6 Warden Brian Williams, et al., 7 Defendant(s). 8 Pro se plaintiff Kevin Newhouse filed a Motion to Direct Service. (ECF No. 22). There are 9 currently two remaining defendants in this case, defendant Mirit Avram, M.D. and an unidentified doe 10 defendant HDSP Nurse FAC #9 (“Doe Nurse”). The Office of the Attorney General filed a notice that it 11 has been unable to identify the Doe Nurse. ECF No. 21. Jilliane A. Jackson, Esq. of the law firm 12 Hutchison & Steffen, PLLC entered an appearance on behalf of defendant Avram on December 4, 2024. 13 ECF No. 21. 14 To save judicial and court resources, before ordering service by the U.S. Marshals, the Court first 15 directs Ms. Jackson to inform the Court by December 30, 2024, of whether Hutchison & Steffen, PLLC 16 accepts service on behalf of defendant Avram. 17 IT IS ORDERED that: 18 1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Direct Service (ECF No. 22) is GRANTED in part as specified in this Order. 19 20 2. By December 30, 2024 Jilliane A. Jackson, Esq. must file a notice advising the Court and plaintiff whether Hutchison & Steffen, PLLC accepts service for defendant Avram. If 21 appearing counsel does not accept service, to assist the Court, counsel must file (under seal) by 22 December 30, 2024. the address where defendant Avram will accept service by the U.S. 23 Marshals. 24 3. If appearing counsel accepts service of process, however, defendant Avram shall file and serve an answer or other response to the complaint by February 7, 2025. 25 4. If appearing counsel does not accept service for defendant Avram, the Court will direct 1 the Clerk of Court to issue summons at that time. 2 3 NOTICE 4 Pursuant to Local Rules IB 3-1 and IB 3-2, a party may object to orders and reports and 5 recommendations issued by the magistrate judge. Objections must be in writing and filed with the Clerk 6 of the Court within fourteen days. LR IB 3-1, 3-2. The Supreme Court has held that the courts of appeal 7 may determine that an appeal has been waived due to the failure to file objections within the specified 8 time. Thomas v. Arn,

(1985). This circuit has also held that (1) failure to file 9 objections within the specified time and (2) failure to properly address and brief the objectionable issues 10 waives the right to appeal the District Court's order and/or appeal factual issues from the order of the 11 District Court. Martinez v. Ylst,

(9th Cir. 1991); Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch. 12 Dist.,

, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 13 Pursuant to LR IA 3-1, the plaintiff must immediately file written notification with the court of 14 any change of address. The notification must include proof of service upon each opposing party’s 15 attorney, or upon the opposing party if the party is unrepresented by counsel. Failure to comply with this 16 rule may result in dismissal of the action. 17 DATED: December 19, 2024. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. _________________________

19 Hon. Maximiliano D. Couvillier III

United States Magistrate Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25